diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 01:30:06 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 01:30:06 -0700 |
| commit | 9f788e3b92c00e2986bc532c356108b7632985d8 (patch) | |
| tree | e9fe985079ab9a5ddb2656be683a255578317724 /20902-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '20902-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/20902-h.htm | 4225 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p104b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 113573 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p104s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 23697 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p113a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 31741 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p113bb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 47681 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p113bs.jpg | bin | 0 -> 8459 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p120a.jpg | bin | 0 -> 17304 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p120bb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 48585 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p120bs.jpg | bin | 0 -> 14809 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p128b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 75617 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p128s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 13215 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p136ab.jpg | bin | 0 -> 68487 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p136as.jpg | bin | 0 -> 21432 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p136b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 23636 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p136c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 34156 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p40ab.jpg | bin | 0 -> 35928 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p40as.jpg | bin | 0 -> 13384 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p40b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 26393 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p40c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 15667 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p80ab.jpg | bin | 0 -> 39423 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p80as.jpg | bin | 0 -> 21510 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p80b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 32479 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p80c.jpg | bin | 0 -> 34778 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p88b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 149678 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p88s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 20275 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p96ab.jpg | bin | 0 -> 81050 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p96as.jpg | bin | 0 -> 8715 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p96bb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 27252 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p96bs.jpg | bin | 0 -> 5035 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p96cb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 28500 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20902-h/images/p96cs.jpg | bin | 0 -> 8765 bytes |
31 files changed, 4225 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/20902-h/20902-h.htm b/20902-h/20902-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e7c8ec5 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/20902-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4225 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>The Clyde Mystery</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4 { + text-align: left; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + TD { vertical-align: top; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + color: gray;} + + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<h2> +<a href="#startoftext">The Clyde Mystery, by Andrew Lang</a> +</h2> +<pre> +The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Clyde Mystery, by Andrew Lang + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + + + + +Title: The Clyde Mystery + a Study in Forgeries and Folklore + + +Author: Andrew Lang + + + +Release Date: March 25, 2007 [eBook #20902] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CLYDE MYSTERY*** +</pre> +<p><a name="startoftext"></a></p> +<p>Transcribed from the 1885 Macmillan and Co. edition by David +Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<h1>The Clyde Mystery<br /> +A Study in Forgeries and Folklore</h1> +<p style="text-align: center">By<br /> +Andrew Lang, M.A. Oxford<br /> +Hon. Fellow of Merton College, LL.D. St. Andrews<br /> +D.Litt. Oxford, D.C.L. Durham</p> +<p style="text-align: center">Glasgow<br /> +James MacLehose and Sons<br /> +Publishers to the University<br /> +1905</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><!-- page iv--><a +name="pageiv"></a><span class="pagenum">p. iv</span><span +class="smcap">glasgow: printed at the university press +by</span><br /> +<span class="smcap">robert maclehose and co. ltd.</span></p> +<h2><!-- page v--><a name="pagev"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +v</span>PREFACE</h2> +<p>The author would scarcely have penned this little specimen of +what Scott called “antiquarian old womanries,” but +for the interest which he takes in the universally diffused +archaic patterns on rocks and stones, which offer a singular +proof of the identity of the working of the human mind. +Anthropology and folklore are the natural companions and aids of +prehistoric and proto-historic archaeology, and suggest remarks +which may not be valueless, whatever view we may take of the +disputed objects from the Clyde sites.</p> +<p>While only an open verdict on these objects is at present +within the competence of science, the author, speaking for +himself, must record his private opinion that, as a rule, they +are ancient though anomalous. He cannot pretend to +certainty as to whether the upper parts of the marine structures +were throughout built of stone, as in Dr. Munro’s theory, +which is used as the fundamental assumption in this book; or <!-- +page vi--><a name="pagevi"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +vi</span>whether they were of wood, as in the hypothesis of Mr. +Donnelly, illustrated by him in the Glasgow <i>Evening Times</i> +(Sept. 11, 1905). The point seems unessential. The +author learns from Mr. Donnelly that experiments in shaping piles +with an ancient stone axe have been made by Mr. Joseph Downes, of +Irvine, as by Monsieur Hippolyte Müller in France, with +similar results, a fact which should have been mentioned in the +book. It appears too, that a fragment of fallow deer horn +at Dumbuck, mentioned by Dr. Munro, turned out to be “a +decayed <i>humerus</i> of the <i>Bos Longifrons</i>,” and +therefore no evidence as to date, as post-Roman.</p> +<p>Mr. Donnelly also protests that his records of his excavations +“were exceptionally complete,” and that he +“took daily notes and sketches of all features and finds +with measurements.” I must mention these facts, as, +in the book, I say that Mr. Donnelly “kept no minute and +hourly dated log book of his explorations, with full details as +to the precise positions of the objects discovered.”</p> +<p>If in any respect I have misconceived the facts and arguments, +I trust that the fault will be ascribed to nothing worse than +human fallibility.</p> +<p>I have to thank Mr. Donnelly for permission <!-- page vii--><a +name="pagevii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. vii</span>to +photograph some objects from Dumbuck and for much +information.</p> +<p>To Dr. Munro, apart from his most valuable books of crannog +lore, I owe his kind attention to my private inquiries, and hope +that I successfully represent his position and arguments. +It is quite undeniable that the disputed objects are most +anomalous as far as our present knowledge goes, and I do not +think that science can give more than all I plead for, an open +verdict. Dr. Ricardo Severe generously permitted me to +reproduce a few (by no means the most singular) of his designs +and photographs of the disputed Portuguese objects. A +serious illness has prevented him from making a visit recently to +the scene of the discoveries (see his paper in <i>Portugalia</i>, +vol. ii., part 1). I trust that Dr. de Vasconcellos, from +whom I have not yet heard, will pardon the reproduction of three +or four figures from his <i>Religiões</i>, an important +work on prehistoric Portugal.</p> +<p>To Dr. Joseph Anderson, of the National Museum, I owe much +gratitude for information, and for his great kindness in +superintending the photographing of some objects now in that +Museum.</p> +<p>Dr. David Murray obliged me by much information as to the +early navigation of the Clyde, <!-- page viii--><a +name="pageviii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. viii</span>and the +alterations made in the bed of the river. To Mr. David +Boyle, Ontario, I owe the knowledge of Red Indian magic stones +parallel to the perforated and inscribed stone from Tappock.</p> +<p>As I have quoted from Dr. Munro the humorous tale of the +palaeolithic designs which deceived M. Lartet and Mr. Christie, I +ought to observe that, in <i>L’Anthropologie</i>, August, +1905, a reviewer of Dr. Munro’s book, Prof. Boule, +expresses some doubt as to the authenticity of the +<i>historiette</i>.</p> +<h2><!-- page xi--><a name="pagexi"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +xi</span>ILLUSTRATIONS</h2> +<p>1. Inscribed Stone, Langbank.</p> +<p>2. Grotesque Face on Stone, Langbank.</p> +<p>3. Late Celtic Comb, Langbank.</p> +<p>4. Bronze Brooch, Langbank.</p> +<p>5. <i>Churinga Irula</i>, Wooden Bull-roarers, Arunta +Tribe.</p> +<p>6. <i>Churinga Nanja</i>, Inscribed Sacred Stone, +Arunta.</p> +<p>7. Sacred Stone Uninscribed, Arunta.</p> +<p>8. Collection of Arunta Sacred Stones.</p> +<p>9, 10. Inscribed Perforated Stone from Tappock. +Age of Iron.</p> +<p>11. Perforated and Inscribed Stone from Dunbuie.</p> +<p>12, 13. Perforated Inscribed Stones from Ontario, +Canada.</p> +<p>14. Perforated Inscribed Stones from Portugal, +Neolithic.</p> +<p>15. Perforated Inscribed Stones from Portugal, +Neolithic.</p> +<p><!-- page xii--><a name="pagexii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +xii</span>16. Perforated “Cup and Duct” Stone, +Portugal, Neolithic.</p> +<p>17, 18. Large Slate Spear-head, Dumbuck.</p> +<p>19. Stone Figurine of Woman, Dumbuck.</p> +<p>20, 21. Cup and Duct Stones, Portuguese, Dolmen Site, +Villa d’Aguiar.</p> +<p>22. Stone Figurine of Woman, Portuguese, Dolmen Site, +Villa d’Aguiar.</p> +<p>23. Heart-shaped Stone, Villa d’Aguiar.</p> +<p>24. Cupped Stone, Villa d’Aguiar.</p> +<p>25. Stone Pendant, Men in Boat, Scottish.</p> +<p>Figures 1-4 from <i>Transactions</i>, with permission of +Glasgow Archaeological Society. Figures 5-8, Spencer and +Gillen, <i>Native Tribes of Central Australia</i>; with +permission of Messrs. Macmillan and Co. 9-11. With +permission of Scottish Society of Antiquaries. 12-13. +Bulletin of Board of Education of Ontario. 14-16. +<i>Religiões</i>, etc., L. de Vasconcellos. 17-19. +With permission of Mr. W. H. Donnelly. 20-24. With +permission of Sr. Ricardo Severo. 25. With permission of +Scottish Society of Antiquarians.</p> +<h2><!-- page 1--><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +1</span>I—THE CLYDE MYSTERY</h2> +<p>The reader who desires to be hopelessly perplexed, may desert +the contemplation of the Fiscal Question, and turn his eyes upon +<i>The Mystery of the Clyde</i>. “Popular” this +puzzle cannot be, for there is no “demmed demp disagreeable +body” in the Mystery. No such object was found in +Clyde, near Dumbarton, but a set of odd and inexpensive looking, +yet profoundly enigmatic scraps of stone, bone, slate, horn and +so forth, were discovered and now repose in a glass case at the +National Museum in Queen Street, Edinburgh.</p> +<p>There, as in the Morgue, lies awaiting explanation the +<i>corpus delicti</i> of the Clyde Mystery. We stare at it +and ask what are these slate spear heads engraved with rude +ornament, and certainly never meant to be used as “lethal +weapons”? What are these many-shaped perforated +plaques of slate, shale, and schist, scratched with some of the +old <!-- page 2--><a name="page2"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +2</span>mysterious patterns that, in almost every part of the +world, remain inscribed on slabs and faces of rock? Who +incised similar patterns on the oyster-shells, some old and +local, some fresh—<i>and American</i>! Why did any +one scratch them? What is the meaning, if meaning there be, +of the broken figurines or stone “dolls”? They +have been styled “totems” by persons who do not know +the meaning of the word “totem,” which merely denotes +the <i>natural</i> object,—usually a plant or +animal,—after which sets of kinsfolk are named among +certain savage tribes. Let us call the little figures +“figurines,” for that commits us to nothing.</p> +<p>Then there are grotesque human heads, carved in stone; bits of +sandstone, marked with patterns, and so forth. Mixed with +these are the common rude appliances, quern stones for grinding +grain; stone hammers, stone polishers, cut antlers of deer, +pointed bones, such as rude peoples did actually use, in early +Britain, and may have retained into the early middle ages, say +400-700 <span class="smcap">a.d.</span></p> +<p>This mixed set of objects, <i>plus</i> the sites in which they +were found, and a huge canoe, 35 feet long, is the material part +of the Clyde Mystery. The querns and canoe and +stone-polishers, and bones, and horns are commonly found, we say, +<!-- page 3--><a name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +3</span>in dwellings of about 400-700 <span +class="smcap">a.d.</span> The peculiar and enigmatic things +are <i>not</i> elsewhere known to Scottish antiquaries. How +did the two sets of objects come to be all mixed up together, in +an old hill fort, at Dunbuie on Clyde; and among the wooden +foundations of two mysterious structures, excavated in the mud of +the Clyde estuary at Dumbuck and Langbank, near Dumbarton? +They were dug up between 1896 and 1902.</p> +<p>This is the question which has been debated, mainly in +newspaper controversy, for nearly ten years. A most +rambling controversy it has been, casting its feelers as far as +central Australia, in space, and as far back as, say, 1200 <span +class="smcap">b.c.</span> in time.</p> +<p>Either the disputed objects at the Museum are actual relics of +life lived in the Clyde basin many centuries ago; or the +discoverers and excavators of the old sites are dogged by a +forger who “dumps down” false relics of kinds unknown +to Scottish antiquaries; or some of the unfamiliar objects are +really old, while others are jocose imitations of these, +or—there is some other explanation!</p> +<p>The modern “Clyde artists” are credited by Dr. +Robert Munro with “some practical artistic skill,” +and some acquaintance with the very old and mysterious designs on +great rocks among <!-- page 4--><a name="page4"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 4</span>the neighbouring hills. <a +name="citation4"></a><a href="#footnote4" +class="citation">[4]</a> What man of artistic skill, no +conscience, and a knowledge of archaic patterns is associated +with the Clyde?</p> +<p>The “faker” is not the mere mischievous wag of the +farm-house or the country shop. It is possible that a few +“interpolations” of false objects have been made by +another and less expert hand, but the weight of the problem rests +on these alternatives,—the disputed relics which were found +are mainly genuine, though unfamiliar; or a forger not destitute +of skill and knowledge has invented and executed +them—or—there is some other explanation.</p> +<p>Three paths, as usual, are open to science, in the present +state of our knowledge of the question. We may pronounce +the unfamiliar relics genuine, and prove it if we can. We +may declare them to be false objects, manufactured within the +last ten years. We may possess our souls in patience, and +“put the objects to a suspense account,” awaiting the +results of future researches and of new information.</p> +<p>This attitude of suspense is not without precedent in +archaeology. “Antiquarian lore,” as Dr. Munro +remarks by implication, <i>can</i> “distinguish <!-- page +5--><a name="page5"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 5</span>between +true and false antiquities.” <a name="citation5a"></a><a +href="#footnote5a" class="citation">[5a]</a> But time is +needed for the verdict, as we see when Dr. Munro describes +“the Breonio Controversy” about disputed stone +objects, a controversy which began in 1885, and appears to be +undecided in 1905. <a name="citation5b"></a><a href="#footnote5b" +class="citation">[5b]</a> I propose to advocate the third +course; the waiting game, and I am to analyse Dr. Munro’s +very able arguments for adopting the second course, and deciding +that the unfamiliar relics are assuredly impostures of +yesterday’s manufacture.</p> +<h2><!-- page 6--><a name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +6</span>II—DR. MUNRO’S BOOK ON THE MYSTERY</h2> +<p>Dr. Munro’s acute and interesting book, <i>Archaeology +and False Antiquities</i>, <a name="citation6"></a><a +href="#footnote6" class="citation">[6]</a> does not cover the +whole of its amusing subject. False gems, coins, +inscriptions, statues, and pictures are scarcely touched upon; +the author is concerned chiefly with false objects of the +pre-historic and “proto-historic” periods, and with +these as bearing on the Clyde controversy of 1896-1905. Out +of 292 pages, at least 130 treat directly of that local dispute: +others bear on it indirectly.</p> +<p>I have taken great interest in this subject since I first +heard of it by accident, in the October or November of +1898. As against Dr. Munro, from whose opinions I +provisionally dissent, I may be said to have no <i>locus +standi</i>. He is an eminent and experienced archaeologist +in matters of European pre-historic and proto-historic +times. <!-- page 7--><a name="page7"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 7</span>Any one is at liberty to say of me +what another celebrated archaeologist, Mr. Charles Hercules Read, +said, in a letter to Dr. Munro, on December 7, 1901, about some +one else: a person designated as “---,” and described +as “a merely literary man, who cannot understand that to +practised people the antiquities are as readable as print, and a +good deal more accurate.” <a name="citation7"></a><a +href="#footnote7" class="citation">[7]</a> But though +“merely literary,” like Mr. “---,” I have +spent much time in the study of comparative anthropology; of the +manners, ideas, customs, implements, and sacred objects of +uncivilised and peasant peoples. Mr. “---” may +not have done so, whoever he is. Again, as “practised +people” often vary widely in their estimates of antique +objects, or objects professing to be antique, I cannot agree with +Mr. Read that “the antiquities” are “as +readable as print,”—if by “antiquities” +he means antiquities in general. At the British Museum I +can show Mr. Read several admirable specimens of the art of +faking, standing, like the Abomination of Desolation, where they +ought not. It was not by unpractised persons that they were +purchased at the national expense. We are all fallible, +even the oldest of us. I conceive Mr. Read, however, to +mean the alleged and <!-- page 8--><a name="page8"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 8</span>disputed “antiquities” of +the Clyde sites, and in that case, his opinion that they are a +“curious swindle” is of the most momentous +weight.</p> +<p>But, as to practised opinion on antiquities in general, Dr. +Munro and I agree that it is really very fallible, now and +again. The best authorities, he proves, may read +antiquities differently. He is not certain that he has not +himself, on occasion, taken “fakes” for true +antiques. <a name="citation8a"></a><a href="#footnote8a" +class="citation">[8a]</a> The <i>savants</i> of the Louvre +were lately caught by the notorious “tiara of +Saitaphernes,” to the pecuniary loss of France; were caught +on April 1, 1896, and were made <i>poissons d’Avril</i>, to +the golden tune of 200,000 francs (£8000).</p> +<p>Again, M. Lartet and Mr. Christy betted a friend that he could +not hoax them with a forged palaeolithic drawing. They lost +their bet, and, after M. Lartet’s death, the forged object +was published, as genuine, in the scientific journal, +<i>Matériaux</i> (1874). <a name="citation8b"></a><a +href="#footnote8b" class="citation">[8b]</a> As M. Reinach +says of another affair, it was “a <i>fumisterie</i>.” +<a name="citation8c"></a><a href="#footnote8c" +class="citation">[8c]</a> Every archaeologist may be the +victim of a <i>fumisterie</i>, few have wholly escaped, and we +find Dr. Furtwangler and Mr. Cecil Smith at odds as to whether a +head <!-- page 9--><a name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +9</span>of Zeus in terra-cotta be of the fifth century <span +class="smcap">b.c.</span> or, quite the contrary, of the +nineteenth or twentieth century <span +class="smcap">a.d.</span></p> +<p>Verily all “practised people” do not find +“antiquities as readable as print.” On the +other hand, my late friend, Dr. A. S. Murray, Keeper of Classical +Antiquities in the British Museum, “read” the +Mycenaean antiquities erroneously, placing them many centuries +too late. M. de Mortillet reckoned them forgeries, and +wrote of the discoverer, Dr. Schliemann, and even of Mrs. +Schliemann, in a tone unusual in men of science and +gentlemen.</p> +<p>The great palaeolithic discoveries of M. Boucher de Perthes, +the very bases of our study of the most ancient men, were +“read” as impostures by many “practised +people.” M. Cartailhac, again, has lately, in the +most candid and honourable way, recanted his own original +disbelief in certain wall-paintings in Spanish caves, of the +period called “palaeolithic,” for long suspected by +him of being “clerical” impostures. <a +name="citation9"></a><a href="#footnote9" +class="citation">[9]</a></p> +<p>Thus even the most “practised people,” like +General Councils, “may err and have erred,” when +confronted either with forgeries, or with objects old in fact, +but new to them. They have <!-- page 10--><a +name="page10"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 10</span><i>not</i> +always found antiquities “as readable as +print.” Dr. Munro touches but faintly on these +“follies of the wise,” but they are not unusual +follies. This must never be forgotten.</p> +<p>Where “practised people” may be mistaken through a +too confirmed scepticism, the “merely literary man” +may, once in an azure moon, happen to be right, or not +demonstrably wrong; that is my excuse for differing, +provisionally, from “practised people.” It is +only provisionally that I dissent from Dr. Munro as to some of +the points at issue in the Clyde controversy. I entered on +it with very insufficient knowledge: I remain, we all remain, +imperfectly informed: and like people rich in practice,—Dr. +Joseph Anderson, and Sir Arthur Mitchell,—I “suspend +my judgement” for the present. <a name="citation10"></a><a +href="#footnote10" class="citation">[10]</a></p> +<p>This appears to me the most scientific attitude. Time is +the great revealer. But Dr. Munro, as we saw, prefers not +to suspend his judgment, and says plainly and pluckily that the +disputed objects in the Clyde controversy are +“spurious”; are what the world calls +“fakes,” though from a delicate sense of the +proprieties of language, he will not call them +“forgeries.” They are reckoned by him among +“false antiquities,” while, for my <!-- page 11--><a +name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 11</span>part, I know +not of what age they are, but incline I believe that many of them +are not of the nineteenth century. This is the extent of +our difference. On the other hand I heartily concur with +Dr. Munro in regretting that his advice,—to subject the +disputed objects at the earliest possible stage of the +proceedings, to a jury of experts,—was not accepted. <a +name="citation11a"></a><a href="#footnote11a" +class="citation">[11a]</a></p> +<p>One observation must be made on Dr. Munro’s logical +method, as announced by himself. “My role, on the +present occasion, is to advocate the correctness of my own views +on purely archaeological grounds, without any special effort to +refute those of my opponents.” <a name="citation11b"></a><a +href="#footnote11b" class="citation">[11b]</a> As my view +is that the methods of Dr. Munro are perhaps,—and I say it +with due deference, and with doubt,—capable of +modification, I shall defend my opinions as best I may. +Moreover, my views, in the course of seven long years (1898-1905) +have necessarily undergone some change, partly in deference to +the arguments of Dr. Munro, partly because much new information +has come to my knowledge since 1898-99. Moreover, on one +occasion, I misstated my own view, and, though I later made my +real opinion perfectly dear, some confusion was generated.</p> +<h2><!-- page 12--><a name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +12</span>III—THE CLYDE CONTROVERSY</h2> +<p>It is necessary, after these prefatory remarks, to give an +account of the rise of the Clyde controversy, and I may be +pardoned for following the example of Dr. Munro, who adds, and +cannot but add, a pretty copious narrative of his own share in +the discussion. In 1896, the hill fort of Dunbuie, +“about a mile-and-a-half to the east of Dumbarton Castle, +and three miles to the west of the Roman Wall,” <a +name="citation12"></a><a href="#footnote12" +class="citation">[12]</a> was discovered by Mr. W. A. Donnelly: +that is to say, Mr. Donnelly suggested that the turf might +conceal something worth excavating, and the work was undertaken, +under his auspices, by the Helensburgh Antiquarian Society.</p> +<p>As Mr. Donnelly’s name constantly occurs in the +discussion, it may be as well to state that, by profession, he is +an artist,—a painter and designer in black and +white,—and that, while keenly <!-- page 13--><a +name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 13</span>interested in +the pre-historic or proto-historic relics of Clydesdale, he makes +no claim to be regarded as a trained archaeologist, or +widely-read student. Thus, after Mr. Donnelly found a +submarine structure at Dumbuck in the estuary of the Clyde, Dr. +Munro writes: “I sent Mr. Donnelly some literature on +crannogs.” <a name="citation13a"></a><a href="#footnote13a" +class="citation">[13a]</a> So Mr. Donnelly, it appears, had +little book lore as to crannogs. He is, in fact, a field +worker in archaeology, rather than an archaeologist of the study +and of books. He is a member of a local archaeological +Society at Helensburgh on the Clyde, and, before he found the +hill fort of Dunbuie, he had discovered an interesting set of +“cup and ring” marked rocks at Auchentorlie, +“only a short distance from Dunbuie.” <a +name="citation13b"></a><a href="#footnote13b" +class="citation">[13b]</a></p> +<p>Mr. Donnelly’s position, then, as regards archaeological +research, was, in 1896-1898, very like that of Dr. Schliemann +when he explored Troy. Like Dr. Schliemann he was no +erudite savant, but an enthusiast with an eye for likely +sites. Like Dr. Schliemann he discovered certain objects +hitherto unknown to Science, (at least to Scottish science,) and, +like Dr. Schliemann, he has had to take “the consequences +of being found in such a situation.”</p> +<p><!-- page 14--><a name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +14</span>It must be added that, again like Dr. Schliemann he was +not an excavator of trained experience. I gather that he +kept no minute and hourly-dated log-book of his explorations, +with full details as to the precise positions of the objects +discovered, while, again like Dr. Schliemann, he had theories of +his own, with some of which I do not concur.</p> +<p>Dr. Munro justly insists on “the absolute necessity of +correctly recording the facts and relics brought to light by +excavations.” <a name="citation14a"></a><a +href="#footnote14a" class="citation">[14a]</a> An excavator +should be an engineer, or be accompanied by a specialist who can +assign exact measurements for the position of every object +discovered. Thus Dr. Munro mentions the case of a man who, +while digging a drain in his garden in Scotland, found an adze of +jade and a pre-historic urn. Dr. Munro declares, with +another expert, that the jade adze is “a modern Australian +implement,” which is the more amazing as I am not aware +that the Australians possess any jade. The point is that +the modern Australian adze was <i>not</i>, as falsely reported, +in the pre-historic urn. <a name="citation14b"></a><a +href="#footnote14b" class="citation">[14b]</a></p> +<p>Here I cannot but remark that while Dr. Munro justly regrets +the absence of record as to precise place of certain finds, he is +not more hospitable to other finds of which the precise locality +is indicated. <!-- page 15--><a name="page15"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 15</span>Things are found by Mr. Bruce as he +clears out the interior of a canoe, or imbedded in the dock on +the removal of the canoe, <a name="citation15"></a><a +href="#footnote15" class="citation">[15]</a> or in the +“kitchen midden”—the refuse heap—but Dr. +Munro does not esteem the objects more highly because we have a +distinct record as to the precise place of their finding.</p> +<h2><!-- page 16--><a name="page16"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +16</span>IV—DUNBUIE</h2> +<p>To return to the site first found, the hill fort of Dunbuie, +excavated in 1896. Dr. Munro writes:</p> +<blockquote><p>“There is no peculiarity about the position +or structure of this fort which differentiates it from many other +forts in North Britain. Before excavation there were few +indications that structural remains lay beneath the +débris, but when this was accomplished there were exposed +to view the foundations of a circular wall, 13½ feet +thick, enclosing a space 30 to 32 feet in diameter. Through +this wall there was one entrance passage on a level with its +base, 3 feet 2 inches in width, protected by two guard chambers, +one on each side, analogous to those so frequently met with in +the Brochs. The height of the remaining part of the wall +varied from 18 inches to 3 feet 6 inches. The interior +contained no dividing walls nor any indications of secondary +occupation.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Thus writes Dr. Munro (pp. 130, 131), repeating his remarks on +p. 181 with this addition,</p> +<blockquote><p>“Had any remains of intra-mural chambers or +of a stone stair been detected it would unhesitatingly be +pronounced a broch; nor, in the absence of such evidence, can it +be definitely <!-- page 17--><a name="page17"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 17</span>dissociated from that peculiar class +of Scottish buildings, because the portion of wall then remaining +was not sufficiently high to exclude the possibility of these +broch characteristics having been present at a higher +level—a structural deviation which has occasionally been +met with.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>“All the brochs,” Dr. Munro goes on, +“hitherto investigated have shown more or less precise +evidence of a post-Roman civilisation, their range, according to +Dr. Joseph Anderson, being “not earlier than the fifth and +not later than the ninth century.” <a +name="citation17"></a><a href="#footnote17" +class="citation">[17]</a> “Although from more recent +discoveries, as, for example, the broch of Torwodlee, +Selkirkshire, there is good reason to believe that their range +might legitimately be brought nearer to Roman times, it makes no +difference in the correctness of the statement that they all +belong to the Iron Age.”</p> +<p>So far the “broch,” or hill fort, was not unlike +other hill forts and brochs, of which there are hundreds in +Scotland. But many of the relics alleged to have been found +in the soil of Dunbuie were unfamiliar in character in these +islands. There was not a shard of pottery, there was not a +trace of metal, but absence of such things is no proof that they +were unknown to the inhabitants of the fort. I may go +further, and say that if any person were capable of interpolating +<!-- page 18--><a name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +18</span>false antiquities, they were equally capable of +concealing such real antiquities in metal or pottery as they +might find; to support their theories, or to serve other private +and obscure ends.</p> +<p>Thus, at Langbank, were found a bronze brooch, and a +“Late Celtic” (200 <span +class="smcap">b.c.</span>?—<span class="smcap">a.d.</span>) +comb. These, of course, upset the theory held by some +inquirers, that the site was Neolithic, that is, was very much +earlier than the Christian era. If the excavators held that +theory, and were unscrupulous, was it not as easy for them to +conceal the objects which disproved the hypothesis, as to insert +the disputed objects—which do not prove it?</p> +<p>Of course Dr. Munro nowhere suggests that any excavator is the +guilty “faker.”</p> +<p>I now quote Dr. Munro’s account of the <i>unfamiliar</i> +objects alleged to have been found in Dunbuie. He begins by +citing the late Mr. Adam Millar, F.S.A.Scot., who described +Dunbuie in the <i>Proceedings S. A. Scot.</i> (vol. <span +class="smcap">xxx.</span> pp. 291-308.)</p> +<blockquote><p>“The fort,” writes Mr. Millar, +“has been examined very thoroughly by picking out the +stones in the interior one by one, and riddling the fine soil and +small stones. The same treatment has been applied to the +refuse heap which was found on the outside, and the result of the +search is a very remarkable collection of weapons, implements, +ornaments, and figured <!-- page 19--><a name="page19"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 19</span>stones.” There is no +description of the precise position of any of these relics in the +ruins, with the exception of two upper stones of querns and a +limpet shell having on its inner surface the presentation of a +human face, which are stated to have been found in the interior +of the fort. No objects of metal or fragments of pottery +were discovered in course of the excavations, and of bone there +were only two small pointed objects and an awl having a +perforation at one end. The majority of the following +worked objects of stone, bone, and shell are so remarkable and +archaic in character that their presence in a fort, which cannot +be placed earlier than the Broch period, and probably long after +the departure of the Romans from North Britain, has led some +archaeologists to question their genuineness as relics of any +phase of Scottish civilisation.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">Objects of Stone</span>.—Nine +spear-heads, like arrow-points, of slate, six of which have +linear patterns scratched on them. Some are perforated with +round holes, and all were made by grinding and polishing. +One object of slate, shaped like a knife, was made by +chipping. “This knife,” says Mr. Millar, +“has a feature common to all these slate weapons—they +seem to have been saturated with oil or fat, as water does not +adhere to them, but runs off as from a greasy +surface.” Another highly ornamental piece of cannel +coal is in the form of a short spear-head with a thickish +stem. The stem is adorned with a series of hollows and +ridges running across it; radiating lines running from the stem +to the margin. Another group of these remarkable objects +shows markings of the cup-and-ring order, circles, linear +incisions, and perforations. Some of these ornamentations +are deeply cut on the naturally rough surfaces of flat pieces of +sandstone, whilst others are on smooth stones artificially +prepared for the purpose. A small piece of <!-- page +20--><a name="page20"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 20</span>flint +was supposed to have been inserted into a partially burnt +handle. There are several examples of hammer-stones of the +ordinary crannog type, rubbing-stones, whetstones, as well as a +large number of water-worn stones which might have been used as +hand-missiles or sling-stones. These latter were not native +to the hill, and must have been transported from burns in the +neighbourhood. There are also two upper quern stones.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">Miscellaneous Objects</span>.—A +number of splintered pieces of bone, without showing any other +evidence of workmanship, have linear incisions, like those on +some of the stones, which suggest some kind of cryptic writing +like ogams. There are also a few water-worn shells, like +those seen on a sandy beach, having round holes bored through +them and sharply-cut scratches on their pearly inner +surface. But on the whole the edible molluscs are but +feebly represented, as only five oyster, one cockle, three +limpet, and two mussel shells were found, nearly all of which +bore marks of some kind of ornamentation. But perhaps the +most grotesque object in the whole collection is the limpet shell +with a human face sculptured on its inner surface.</p> +<p>“The eyes,” writes Mr. Millar, “are +represented by two holes, the nose by sharply-cut lines, and the +mouth by a well-drawn waved line, the curves which we call +Cupid’s bow being faithfully followed. There is +nothing at all of an archaic character, however, in this example +of shell-carving. We found it in the interior of the fort; +it was one of the early finds—nothing like it has been +found since; at the same time we have no reason for assuming that +this shell was placed in the fort on purpose that we might find +it. The fact that it was taken out of the fort is all that +we say about it.”</p> +<p>Mr. Millar’s opinion of these novel handicraft remains +was that they were the products of a pre-Celtic +civilisation. “The <!-- page 21--><a +name="page21"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 21</span>articles +found,” he writes, “are strongly indicative of a much +earlier period than post-Roman; they point to an occupation of a +tribe in their Stone Age.”</p> +<p>“We have no knowledge of the precise position in which +the ‘queer things’ of Dunbuie were found, with the +exception of the limpet shell showing the carved human face +which, according to a recent statement in the <i>Journal of the +British Archaeological Association</i>, September, 1901, +“was excavated from a crevice in the living rock, over +which tons of debris had rested. When taken out, the +incrustations of dirt prevented any carving from being seen; it +was only after being dried and cleaned that the +‘face’ appeared, as well as the suspension holes on +each side.”</p> +<p>So, this unique piece of art was in the fort before it became +a ruin and otherwise presented evidence of great antiquity; but +yet it is stated in Mr. Millar’s report that there was +“nothing at all of an archaic character in this example of +shell-carving.” <a name="citation21"></a><a +href="#footnote21" class="citation">[21]</a></p> +</blockquote> +<p>I have nothing to do with statements made in <i>The Journal of +the British Archaeological Association</i> about “<i>a +carved oyster shell</i>.” I stick to the limpet shell +of Mr. Millar, which, to my eyes looks anything but archaic.</p> +<h2><!-- page 22--><a name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +22</span>V—HOW I CAME INTO THE CONTROVERSY</h2> +<p>Thus far, I was so much to be sympathised with as never to +have heard of the names of Dunbuie and of Mr. Donnelly. In +this ignorance I remained till late in October or early in +November 1898. On an afternoon of that date I was reading +the proof sheets, kindly lent to me by Messrs. Macmillan, of +<i>The Native Tribes of Central Australia</i> by Messrs. Spencer +and Gillen, a work, now justly celebrated, which was published +early in 1899. I was much interested on finding, in this +book, that certain tribes of Central Australia,—the Arunta +“nation” and the Kaitish,—<i>paint</i> on +sacred and other rocks the very same sorts of archaic designs as +Mr. Donnelly found <i>incised</i> at Auchentorlie (of which I had +not then heard). These designs are familiar in many other +parts of Scotland and of the world. They play a great part +in the initiations and magic of Central Australia. Designs +of the same class are incised, by the same Australian tribes, on +stones of various <!-- page 23--><a name="page23"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 23</span>shapes and sizes, usually portable, +and variously shaped which are styled <i>churinga +nanja</i>. (<i>Churinga</i> merely means anything +“sacred,” that is, with a superstitious sense +attached to it). They also occur on wooden slats, +(<i>churinga irula</i>,) commonly styled “Bull +roarers” by Europeans. The tribes are now in a +“siderolithic” stage, using steel when they can get +it, stone when they cannot. If ever they come to abandon +stone implements, while retaining their magic or religion, they +will keep on using their stone <i>churinga nanja</i>.</p> +<p>While I was studying these novel Australian facts, in the +autumn of 1898, a friend, a distinguished member of Clan +Diarmaid, passing by my window, in London, saw me, and came +in. He at once began to tell me that, in the estuary of the +Clyde, and at Dunbuie, some one had found small stones, marked +with the same archaic kinds of patterns, +“cup-and-ring,” half circles, and so forth, as exist +on our inscribed rocks, cists, and other large objects. I +then showed him the illustrations of portable stones in +Australia, with archaic patterns, not then published, but figured +in the proof sheets of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen’s +work. My friend told me, later, that he had seen small +stone incised with concentric circles, found in the excavation of +a hill fort near Tarbert, in Kintyre. He made a sketch of +this object, from <!-- page 24--><a name="page24"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 24</span>memory: if found in Central Australia +it would have been reckoned a <i>churinga nanja</i>.</p> +<p>I was naturally much interested in my friend’s account +of objects found in the Clyde estuary, which, <i>as far as his +description went</i>, resembled in being archaically decorated +the <i>churinga nanja</i> discovered by Messrs. Spencer and +Gillen in Central Australia. I wrote an article on the +subject of the archaic decorative designs, as found all over the +world, for the <i>Contemporary Review</i>. <a +name="citation24"></a><a href="#footnote24" +class="citation">[24]</a> I had then seen only pen and ink +sketches of the objects, sent to me by Mr. Donnelly, and a few +casts, which I passed on to an eminent authority. One of +the casts showed a round stone with concentric circles. I +know not what became of the original or of the casts.</p> +<p>While correcting proofs of this article, I read in the +<i>Glasgow Herald</i> (January 7, 1899) a letter by Dr. Munro, +impugning the authenticity of one set of finds by Mr. Donnelly, +in a pile-structure at Dumbuck, on the Clyde, near +Dumbarton. I wrote to the <i>Glasgow Herald</i>, adducing +the Australian <i>churinga nanja</i> as parallel to Mr. +Donnelly’s inscribed stones, and thus my share in the +controversy began. What Dr. Munro and I then wrote may be +passed over in this place.</p> +<h2><!-- page 25--><a name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +25</span>VI—DUMBUCK</h2> +<p>It was in July 1898, that Mr. Donnelly, who had been +prospecting during two years for antiquities in the Clyde +estuary, found at low tide, certain wooden stumps, projecting out +of the mud at low water. On August 16, 1898, Dr. Munro, +with Mr. Donnelly, inspected these stumps, “before +excavations were made.” <a name="citation25a"></a><a +href="#footnote25a" class="citation">[25a]</a> It is not +easy to describe concisely the results of their inspection, and +of the excavations which followed. “So far the +facts” (of the site, not of the alleged relics), +“though highly interesting as evidence of the hand of man +in the early navigation of the Clyde basin present nothing very +remarkable or important,” says Dr. Munro. <a +name="citation25b"></a><a href="#footnote25b" +class="citation">[25b]</a></p> +<p>I shall here quote Dr. Munro’s descriptions of what he +himself observed at two visits, of August 16, October 12, 1898, +to Dumbuck. For the <!-- page 26--><a +name="page26"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 26</span>present I +omit some speculative passages as to the original purpose of the +structure.</p> +<blockquote><p>“The so-called Dumbuck +‘crannog,’ that being the most convenient name under +which to describe the submarine wooden structures lately +discovered by Mr. W. A. Donnelly in the estuary of the Clyde, +lies about a mile to the east of the rock of Dumbarton, and about +250 yards within high-water mark. At every tide its site is +covered with water to a depth of three to eight feet, but at low +tide it is left high and dry for a few hours, so that it was only +during these tidal intervals that the excavations could be +conducted.</p> +<p>On the occasion of my first visit to Dumbuck, before +excavations were begun, Mr. Donnelly and I counted twenty-seven +piles of oak, some 5 or 8 inches in diameter, cropping up for a +few inches through the mud, in the form of a circle 56 feet in +diameter. The area thus enclosed was occupied with the +trunks of small trees laid horizontally close to each other and +directed towards the centre, and so superficial that portions of +them were exposed above the surrounding mud, but all hollows and +interstices were levelled up with sand or mud. The tops of +the piles which projected above the surface of the log-pavement +were considerably worn by the continuous action of the muddy +waters during the ebb and flow of the tides, a fact which +suggested the following remarkable hypothesis: ‘Their tops +are shaped in an oval, conical form, meant to make a joint in a +socket to erect the superstructure on.’ These words +are quoted from a ‘Report of a Conjoint Visit of the +Geological and Philosophical Societies to the Dumbuck Crannog, +8th April, 1899.’ <a name="citation26"></a><a +href="#footnote26" class="citation">[26]</a></p> +<p>The result of the excavations, so far as I can gather from +<!-- page 27--><a name="page27"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +27</span>observations made during my second visit to the +‘crannog,’ and the descriptions and plans published +by various societies, may be briefly stated as follows.</p> +<p>The log-pavement within the circle of piles was the upper of +three similar layers of timbers placed one above the other, the +middle layer having its beams lying transversely to that +immediately above and below it. One of the piles (about 4 +feet long) when freshly drawn up, clearly showed that it had been +pointed by a sharp metal implement, the cutting marks being like +those produced by an ordinary axe. The central portion +(about 6 feet in diameter) had no woodwork, and the circular +cavity thus formed, when cleared of fallen stones, showed +indications of having been walled with stones and clay. +Surrounding this walled cavity—the so-called +‘well’ of the explorers, there was a kind of coping, +in the form of five or six ‘raised mounds,’ arranged +‘rosette fashion,’ in regard to which Mr. Donnelly +thus writes:</p> +<p>‘One feature that strikes me very much in the +configuration of the structure in the centre is those places +marked X, fig. 20, around which I have discovered the presence of +soft wood piles 5 inches in diameter driven into the ground, and +bounding the raised stone arrangement; the stones in these rude +circular pavements or cairns are laid slightly slanting +inwards.’ <a name="citation27"></a><a href="#footnote27" +class="citation">[27]</a></p> +<p>From this description, and especially the ‘slanting +inwards’ of these ‘circular pavements’ or +‘cairns,’ it would appear that they formed the bases +for wooden stays to support a great central pole, a suggestion +which, on different grounds, has already been made by Dr. David +Murray.</p> +<p>The surrounding piles were also attached to the horizontal +logs by various ingenious contrivances, such as a fork, a natural +bend, an artificial check, or a mortised hole; and some of the +beams were pinned together by tree-nails, the perforations of +<!-- page 28--><a name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +28</span>which were unmistakable. This binding together of +the wooden structures is a well-known feature in crannogs, as was +demonstrated by my investigations at Lochlee and elsewhere. <a +name="citation28a"></a><a href="#footnote28a" +class="citation">[28a]</a> It would be still more necessary +in a substratum of timbers that was intended (as will be +afterwards explained) to bear the weight of a superincumbent +cairn. Underneath the layers of horizontal woodwork some +portions of heather, bracken, and brushwood were detected, and +below this came a succession of thin beds of mud, loam, sand, +gravel, and finally the blue clay which forms the solum of the +river valley. <a name="citation28b"></a><a href="#footnote28b" +class="citation">[28b]</a> The piles penetrated this +latter, but not deeply, owing to its consistency; and so the blue +clay formed an excellent foundation for a structure whose main +object was resistance to superincumbent pressure.</p> +<p>Outside the circle of piles there was, at a distance of 12 to +14 feet, another wooden structure in the shape of a broad ring of +horizontal beams and piles which surrounded the central +area. The breadth of this outer ring was 7 feet, and it +consisted of some nine rows of beams running +circumferentially. Beyond this lay scattered about some +rough cobble stones, as if they had fallen down from a stone +structure which had been raised over the woodwork. The +space intervening between these wooden structures was filled up +in its eastern third with a refuse heap, consisting of broken and +partially burnt bones of various animals, the shells of edible +molluscs, and a quantity of ashes and charcoal, evidently the +débris of human occupancy. On the north, or landward +side, the outer and inner basements of woodwork appeared to +coalesce for 5 or 6 yards, leaving an open space having stones +embedded in the mud and decayed wood, a condition of things which +suggested a rude causeway. When Mr. Donnelly drew my +attention to this, I <!-- page 29--><a name="page29"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 29</span>demurred to its being so +characterised owing to its indefiniteness. At the outer +limit of this so-called causeway, and about 25 feet north-east of +the circle of piles, a canoe was discovered lying in a kind of +dock, rudely constructed of side stones and wooden piling. +The canoe measures 35½ feet long, 4 feet broad, and +1½ foot deep. It has a square stern with a movable +board, two grasping holes near the stem, and three round +perforations (2 inches in diameter) in its bottom. On the +north-west border of the log-pavement a massive ladder of oak was +found, one end resting on the margin of the log-pavement and the +other projecting obliquely into the timberless zone between the +former and the outer woodwork. It is thus described in the +<i>Proceedings of the Glasgow Philosophical Society</i>:<a +name="citation29"></a><a href="#footnote29" +class="citation">[29]</a></p> +<p>‘Made of a slab of oak which has been split from the +tree by wedges (on one side little has been done to dress the +work), it is 15 feet 3 inches long, 2 feet broad, and 3½ +inches thick. Six holes are cut for steps, 12 inches by 10 +inches; the bottom of each is bevelled to an angle of 60 degrees +to make the footing level when the ladder is in position. +On one side those holes show signs of wear by long +use.’</p> +<p>An under quern stone, 19 inches in diameter, was found about +halfway between the canoe and the margin of the circle of piles, +and immediately to the east of the so-called causeway already +described.</p> +<p>I carefully examined the surface of the log-pavement with the +view of finding evidence as to the possibility of its having been +at any time the habitable area of this strange dwelling-place; +but the result was absolutely negative, as not a single particle +of bone or ash was discovered in any of its chinks. This +fact, together with the impossibility of living on a surface that +is submerged every twelve hours, and the improbability of <!-- +page 30--><a name="page30"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +30</span>any land subsidence having taken place since prehistoric +times, or any adequate depression from the shrinkage of the +under-structures themselves, compels me to summarily reject the +theory that the Dumbuck structure in its present form was an +ordinary crannog. The most probable hypothesis, and that +which supplies a reasonable explanation of all the facts, is that +the woodwork was the foundation of a superstructure of stones +built sufficiently high to be above the action of the tides and +waves, over which there had been some kind of +dwelling-place. The unique arrangement of the wooden +substructures suggests that the central building was in the form +of a round tower with very thick walls, like the brochs and other +forts of North Britain. The central space was probably +occupied with a pole, firmly fixed at its base in the +‘well,’ and kept in position by suitable stays, +resting partly on the stone ‘cairns’ already +described, partly in wooden sockets fixed into the log-pavement, +and partly on the inner wall of the tower. This suggestion +seems to me to be greatly strengthened by the following +description of some holed tree-roots in Mr. Bruce’s paper +to the Scottish Antiquaries: <a name="citation30"></a><a +href="#footnote30" class="citation">[30]</a></p> +<p>‘Midway between the centre and the outside piles of the +structure what looked at first to be tree-roots or snags were +noticed partly imbedded in the sand. On being washed of the +adhering soil, holes of 12 inches wide by 25 inches deep were +found cut in them at an angle, to all appearance for the +insertion of struts for the support of an upper structure. +On the outside, 14 inches down on either side, holes of 2 inches +diameter were found intersecting the central hole, apparently for +the insertion of a wooden key or trenail to retain the +struts. These were found at intervals, and were held in +position by stones and smaller jammers.’</p> +<p>The outer woodwork formed the foundation of another <!-- page +31--><a name="page31"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 31</span>stone +structure, of a horseshoe shape, having the open side to the +north or landside of the tower, which doubtless was intended as a +breakwater. By means of the ladder placed slantingly +against the wall of the central stone building access could be +got to the top in all states of the tides.</p> +<p>The people who occupied this watch-tower ground their own +corn, and fared abundantly on beef, mutton, pork, venison, and +shell-fish. The food refuse and other debris were thrown +into the space between the central structure and the breakwater, +forming in the course of time a veritable kitchen-midden.</p> +<p>Besides the causeway on the north side, Mr. Bruce describes +‘a belt of stones, forming a pavement about six feet wide +and just awash with the mud,’ extending westwards about +twenty yards from the central cavity, till it intersected the +breakwater. <a name="citation31"></a><a href="#footnote31" +class="citation">[31]</a> These so-called pavements and +causeways were probably formed during the construction of the +tower with its central pole, or perhaps at the time of its +demolition, as it would be manifestly inconvenient to transport +stones to or from such a place, in the midst of so much slush, +without first making some kind of firm pathway. Their +present superficial position alone demonstrates the absurdity of +assigning the Dumbuck structures to Neolithic times, as if the +only change effected in the bed of the Clyde since then would be +the deposition of a few inches of mud. At a little distance +to the west of these wooden structures there is the terminal end +of a modern ditch (‘the burn’ of Mr. Alston), +extending towards the shore, and having on its eastern bank a row +of stepping-stones; a fact which, in my opinion, partly accounts +for the demolition of the stonework, which formerly stood over +them. So far, the facts <!-- page 32--><a +name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 32</span>disclosed by +the excavations of the structures at Dumbuck, though highly +interesting as evidence of the hand of man in the early +navigation of the Clyde basin, present nothing very remarkable or +improbable. It is when we come to examine the strange +relics which the occupants of this habitation have left behind +them that the real difficulties begin.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Dr. Munro next describes the disputed things found at +Dumbuck. They were analogous to those alleged to have been +unearthed at Dunbuie. They were</p> +<blockquote><p>“A number of strange objects like +spear-heads or daggers, showing more or less workmanship, and +variously ornamented. One great spear-head (figure 1), like +an arrow-point, is 11 inches long and 4¾ inches wide at +the barbs. The stem is perforated with two holes, in one of +which there was a portion of an oak pin. It has a flat body +and rounded edges, and is carefully finished by rubbing and +grinding. One surface is ornamented with three cup-marks +from which lines radiate like stars or suns, and the other has +only small cups and a few transverse lines. There are some +shaped stones, sometimes perforated for suspension, made of the +same material; while another group of similar objects is made of +cannel coal. All these are highly ornamented by a fantastic +combination of circles, dots, lines, cup-and-rings with or +without gutters, and perforations. A small pebble (plate +<span class="smcap">xv.</span> no. 10) shows, on one side, a boat +with three men plying their oars, and on the other an incised +outline of a left hand having a small cup-and-ring in the +palm. The most sensational objects in the collection are, +however, four rude figures, cut out of shale (figs. 50-53), +representing portions of the human face and person. One, +evidently a female (figure 2), we are informed was found at the +bottom of the kitchen midden, a strange resting-place <!-- page +33--><a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 33</span>for a +goddess; the other three are grotesque efforts to represent a +human face. There are also several oyster-shells, +ornamented like some of the shale ornaments, and very similar to +the oyster-shell ornaments of Dunbuie. A splinter of a hard +stone is inserted into the tine of a deer-horn as a handle (plate +xiii. no. 5); and another small blunt implement (no. 1) has a +bone handle. A few larger stones with cup-marks and some +portions of partially worked pieces of shale complete the art +gallery of Dumbuck.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>It seemed as if some curse were on Mr. Donnelly! Whether +he discovered an unique old site of human existence in the water +or on the land, some viewless fiend kept sowing the soil with +<i>bizarre</i> objects unfamiliar to Dr. Munro, and by him deemed +incongruous with the normal and known features of human life on +such sites.</p> +<h2><!-- page 34--><a name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +34</span>VII—LANGBANK</h2> +<p>The Curse, (that is, the forger,) unwearied and relentless, +next smote Mr. John Bruce, F.S.A.Scot., merely, as it seems, +because he and Mr. Donnelly were partners in the perfectly +legitimate pastime of archaeological exploration. Mr. +Bruce’s share of the trouble began at Dumbuck. The +canoe was found, the genuine canoe. “It was at once +cleared out by myself,” writes Mr. Bruce. In the +bottom of the canoe he found “a spear-shaped slate +object,” and “an ornamented oyster shell, which has +since mouldered away,” and “a stone pendant object, +and an implement of bone.” <a name="citation34"></a><a +href="#footnote34" class="citation">[34]</a></p> +<p>Such objects have no business to be found in a canoe just +discovered under the mud of Clyde, and cleared out by Mr. Bruce +himself, a man or affairs, and of undisputed probity. In +this case the precise site of the dubious relics is given, by a +<!-- page 35--><a name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +35</span>man of honour, at first hand. I confess that my +knowledge of human nature does not enable me to contest Mr. +Bruce’s written attestation, while I marvel at the +astuteness of the forger. As a finder, on this occasion, +Mr. Bruce was in precisely the same position as Dr. Munro at Elie +when, as he says, “as the second piece of pottery was +disinterred by myself, I was able to locate its precise position +at six inches below the surface of the relic bed.” <a +name="citation35"></a><a href="#footnote35" +class="citation">[35]</a> Mr. Bruce was able to locate +<i>his</i> finds at the bottom of the canoe.</p> +<p>If I understand Mr. Bruce’s narrative, a canoe was found +under the mud, and was “cleared out inside,” by Mr. +Bruce himself. Had the forger already found the canoe, kept +the discovery dark, inserted fraudulent objects, and waited for +others to rediscover the canoe? Or was he present at the +first discovery, and did he subtly introduce, unnoted by any one, +four objects of shell, stone, and bone, which he had up his +sleeve, ready for an opportunity? One or other alternative +must be correct, and either hypothesis has its difficulties.</p> +<p>Meanwhile Sir Arthur Mitchell, not a credulous savant, says: +“The evidence of authenticity in regard to these doubted +objects from Dumbuck <!-- page 36--><a name="page36"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 36</span>is the usual evidence in such +circumstances . . . it is precisely the same evidence of +authenticity which is furnished in regard to all the classes of +objects found in the Dumbuck exploration—that is, in regard +to the canoe, the quern, the bones etc.—about the +authenticity of which no doubts have been expressed, as in regard +to objects about which doubts have been expressed.” <a +name="citation36a"></a><a href="#footnote36a" +class="citation">[36a]</a></p> +<p>Of another object found by a workman at Dumbuck Dr. Munro +writes “is it not very remarkable that a workman, groping +with his hand in the mud, should accidentally stumble on this +relic—the only one found in this part of the site? Is +it possible that he was an unconscious thought-reader, and was +thus guided to make the discovery” of a thing which +“could as readily have been inserted there half-an-hour +before?” <a name="citation36b"></a><a href="#footnote36b" +class="citation">[36b]</a></p> +<p>This passage is “rote sarcustic.” But surely +Dr. Munro will not, he cannot, argue that Mr. Bruce was “an +unconscious thought-reader” when <i>he</i> “cleared +out” the interior of the canoe, and found three disputed +objects “in the bottom.”</p> +<p>If we are to be “psychical,” there seems less +evidence for “unconscious thought-reading,” than <!-- +page 37--><a name="page37"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +37</span>for the presence of what are technically styled +<i>apports</i>,—things introduced by an agency of +supra-normal character, vulgarly called a +“spirit.”</p> +<p>Undeterred by an event which might have struck fear <i>in +constantem virum</i>, Mr. Bruce, in the summer of 1901, was so +reckless as to discover a fresh “submarine wooden +structure” at Langbank, on the left, or south bank of the +Clyde Estuary opposite Dumbarton Castle. The dangerous +object was cautiously excavated under the superintendence of Mr. +Bruce, and a committee of the Glasgow Archaeological +Society. To be brief, the larger features were akin to +those of Dumbuck, without the central “well,” or +hole, supposed by Dr. Munro to have held the pole of a +beacon-cairn. The wooden piles, as at Dumbuck, had been +fashioned by “sharp metal tools.” <a +name="citation37"></a><a href="#footnote37" +class="citation">[37]</a> This is Mr. Bruce’s own +opinion. This evidence of the use of metal tools is a great +point of Dr. Munro, against such speculative minds as deem +Dumbuck and Langbank “neolithic,” that is, of a date +long before the Christian era. <i>They</i> urged that stone +tools could have fashioned the piles, but I know not that +partisans of either opinion have made experiments in hewing trees +with stone-headed axes, like the ingenious Monsieur <!-- page +38--><a name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +38</span>Hippolyte Müller in France. <a +name="citation38a"></a><a href="#footnote38a" +class="citation">[38a]</a> I am, at present, of opinion +that all the sites are of an age in which iron was well known to +the natives, and bronze was certainly known.</p> +<p>The relics at Langbank were (1) of a familiar, and (2) of an +unfamiliar kind. There was (1) a small bone comb with a +“Late Celtic” (200 <span class="smcap">b.c.</span>-? +<span class="smcap">a.d.</span>) design of circles and segments +of circles; there was a very small penannular brooch of brass or +bronze; there were a few cut fragments of deer horn, pointed +bones, stone polishers, and so forth, all familiar to science and +acceptable. <a name="citation38b"></a><a href="#footnote38b" +class="citation">[38b]</a></p> +<p>On the other hand, the Curse fell on Mr. Bruce in the shape of +two perforated shale objects: on one was cut a grotesque face, on +the other two incomplete concentric circles, “a stem line +with little nicks,” and two vague incised marks, which may, +or may not, represent “fragments of deer horn.” <a +name="citation38c"></a><a href="#footnote38c" +class="citation">[38c]</a></p> +<p>We learn from Mr. Bruce that he first observed the Langbank +circle of stones from the window of a passing train, and that he +made a few slight excavations, apparently at the end of +September, 1901. More formal research was made in October; +and again, under the superintendence of members of the Glasgow +Archaeological Society, <!-- page 39--><a name="page39"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 39</span>in September, October, 1902. No +members of the Glasgow Committee were present when either the +undisputed Late Celtic comb, or the inscribed, perforated, and +disputed pieces of cannel coal were discovered. +Illustrations of these objects and of the bronze penannular ring +are here given, (figures 1, 2, 3, 4), (two shale objects are +omitted,) by the kindness of the Glasgow Archaeological Society +(<i>Transactions</i>, vol. v. p. 1).</p> +<p>The brooch (allowed to be genuine) “might date from +Romano-British times, say 100-400 <span class="smcap">a.d.</span> +to any date up to late mediaeval times.” <a +name="citation39"></a><a href="#footnote39" +class="citation">[39]</a> Good evidence to date, in a wide +sense, would be the “osseous remains,” the bones left +in the refuse at Langbank and Dumbuck. Of the bones, I only +gather as peculiarly interesting, that Dr. Bryce has found those +of <i>Bos Longifrons</i>. Of <i>Bos Longifrons</i> as a +proof of date, I know little. Mr. Ridgeway, Disney +Professor of Archaeology in the University of Cambridge, is not +“a merely literary man.” In his work <i>The +Early Age of Greece</i>, vol. i., pp. 334, 335 (Cambridge +University Press, 1901), Mr. Ridgeway speaks of <i>Bos</i> as the +Celtic ox, co-eval with the Swiss Lake Dwellings, and known as +<i>Bos brachyceros</i>—“short horn”—so +styled by Rutimeyer. If he is “Celtic” I <!-- +page 40--><a name="page40"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +40</span>cannot say how early <i>Bos</i> may have existed among +the Celts of Britain, but the Romans are thought by some persons +to have brought the Celtic ox to the Celts of our island. +If this be so, the Clyde sites are not earlier (or <i>Bos</i> in +these sites is not earlier) than the Roman invasion. He +lasted into the seventh or eighth centuries <span +class="smcap">a.d.</span> at least, and is found on a site +discovered by Dr. Munro at Elie. <a name="citation40a"></a><a +href="#footnote40a" class="citation">[40a]</a> Meanwhile +archaeology is so lazy, that, after seven years, Dr. +Bryce’s “reports on the osseous remains” of +Langbank and Dumbuck is but lately published. <a +name="citation40b"></a><a href="#footnote40b" +class="citation">[40b]</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p40ab.jpg"> +<img alt="Figs. 1, 2" src="images/p40as.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>Dr. Bryce, in his report to the Glasgow Archaeological +Society, says that “<i>Bos Longifrons</i> has a wide range +in time, from Neolithic down to perhaps even medieval +times. It was the domestic ox in Scotland for an unknown +period, before, during, and for an unknown time after the Roman +invasion. . . . The occurrence of extinct, probably long +extinct, breeds, and these only, make the phenomena in this +respect at Langbank exactly comparable with those observed at +sites of pile buildings in Scotland generally, and thus it +becomes indirect evidence against the thesis that the structure +belongs to some different category, and to quite recent +times.” <a name="citation40c"></a><a href="#footnote40c" +class="citation">[40c]</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p40b.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 3" src="images/p40b.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p><!-- page 41--><a name="page41"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +41</span>The evidence of the bones, then, denotes any date except +a relatively recent date, of 1556-1758; contrary to an hypothesis +to be touched on later. It follows, from the presence of +<i>Bos</i> at Elie (700 <span class="smcap">a.d.</span>) that the +occupants of the Clyde sites at Langbank may have lived there as +late as, say, 750 <span class="smcap">a.d.</span> But when +they <i>began</i> to occupy the sites is another question.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p40c.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 4" src="images/p40c.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>If Roman objects are found, as they are, in brochs which show +many relics of bronze, it does not follow that the brochs had not +existed for centuries before the inhabitants acquired the waifs +and strays of Roman civilisation. In the Nine Caithness +Brochs described by Dr. Joseph Anderson, <a +name="citation41"></a><a href="#footnote41" +class="citation">[41]</a> there was a crucible . . . with a +portion of melted bronze, a bronze ring, moulds for ingots, an +ingot of bronze, bits of Roman “Samian ware,” but no +iron. We can be sure that the broch folk were at some time +in touch of Roman goods, brought by traffickers perhaps, but how +can we be sure that there were no brochs before the arrival of +the Romans?</p> +<p>We shall return to the question of the disputable relics of +the Clyde, after discussing what science has to say about the +probable date and original purpose of the wooden structures in +the <!-- page 42--><a name="page42"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +42</span>Clyde estuary. Nobody, it is admitted, forged +<i>them</i>, but on the other hand Dr. Munro, the one most +learned authority on “Lake Dwellings,” or +“Crannogs,” does not think that the sites were ever +occupied by regular “crannogs,” or lacustrine +settlements, Lake Dwellings.</p> +<h2><!-- page 43--><a name="page43"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +43</span>VIII—THE ORIGINAL DATE AND PURPOSE OF DUMBUCK AND +LANGBANK</h2> +<p>The actual structures of Langbank and Dumbuck, then, are +confessedly ancient remains; they are <i>not</i> of the +nineteenth century; they are “unique” in our +knowledge, and we ask, what was the purpose of their +constructors, and what is their approximate date?</p> +<p>Dr. Munro quotes and discusses <a name="citation43"></a><a +href="#footnote43" class="citation">[43]</a> a theory, or a +tentative guess of Dr. David Murray. That scholar writes +“River cairns are commonly built on piled platforms, <i>and +my doubt is</i> whether this is not the nature of the structure +in question” (Dumbuck). A river cairn is a solid pile +of stonework, with, perhaps, a pole in the centre. At +Dumbuck there is the central “well” of six feet in +diameter. Dr. Murray says that a pole “carried down +to the bottom would probably be sunk in <!-- page 44--><a +name="page44"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 44</span>the clay, +which would produce a hole, or well-like cavity similar to that +of the Dumbuck structure.” <a name="citation44"></a><a +href="#footnote44" class="citation">[44]</a></p> +<p>It is not stated that the poles of river cairns usually demand +accommodation to the extent of six feet of diameter, in the +centre of the solid mass of stones, and, as the Langbank site has +no central well, the tentative conjecture that it was a river +cairn is not put forward. Dr. Murray suggests that the +Dumbuck cairn “may have been one of the works of 1556 or +1612,” that is, of the modern age of Queen Mary and James +VI. The object of such Corporation cairns “was no +doubt to mark the limit of their jurisdiction, and also to serve +as a beacon to vessels coming up the river.”</p> +<p>Now the Corporation, with its jurisdiction and beacons, is +purely modern. In 1758 the Corporation had a “lower +cairn, if it did not occupy this very spot” (Dumbuck) +“it stood upon the same line and close to it. There +are, however, no remains of such cairn,” says Dr. +Murray. He cites no evidence for the date and expenses of +the demolition of the cairn from any municipal book of +accounts.</p> +<p>Now we have to ask (1) Is there any evidence <!-- page 45--><a +name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 45</span>that men in +1556-1758 lived on the tops of such modern cairns, dating from +the reign of Mary Stuart? (2) If men then lived on the top +of a cairn till their food refuse became “a veritable +kitchen midden,” as Dr. Munro says, <a +name="citation45"></a><a href="#footnote45" +class="citation">[45]</a> would that refuse exhibit bones of +<i>Bos Longifrons</i>; and over ninety bone implements, sharpened +antlers of deer, stone polishers, hammer stones, “a saddle +stone” for corn grinding, and the usual +<i>débris</i> of sites of the fifth to the twelfth +centuries? (3) Would such a modern site exhibit these +archaic relics, plus a “Late Celtic” comb and +“penannular brooch,” and exhibit not one modern +article of metal, or one trace of old clay tobacco pipes, +crockery, or glass?</p> +<p>The answers to these questions are obvious. It is not +shown that any men ever lived on the tops of cairns, and, even if +they did so in modern times (1556-1758) they could not leave +abundant relics of the broch and crannog age (said to be of +400-1100 <span class="smcap">a.d.</span>), and leave no relics of +modern date. This theory, or suggestion, is therefore +demonstrably untenable and unimaginable.</p> +<p>Dr. Munro, however, “sees nothing against the +supposition” that “Dr. Murray is right,” but +Dr. Munro’s remarks about the hypothesis <!-- page 46--><a +name="page46"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 46</span>of modern +cairns, as a theory “against which he sees nothing,” +have the air of being an inadvertent <i>obiter dictum</i>. +For, in his conclusion and summing up he writes, “We claim +to have established that the structures of Dunbuie, Dumbuck, and +Langbank are remains of inhabited sites of the early-Iron Age, +dating to some time between the fifth and twelfth +centuries.” <a name="citation46a"></a><a +href="#footnote46a" class="citation">[46a]</a> I accept +this conclusion, and will say as little as may be about the +theory of a modern <i>origin</i> of the sites, finally discarded +by Dr. Munro. I say “discarded,” for his theory +is that the modern corporation utilised an earlier structure as a +cairn or beacon, or boundary mark, which is perfectly +possible. But, if this occurred, it does not affect the +question, for this use of the structure has left no traces of any +kind. There are no relics, except relics of the fifth (?) +to twelfth (?) centuries.</p> +<p>In an earlier work by Dr. Munro, <i>Prehistoric Scotland</i> +(p. 439), published in 1899, he observes that we have no evidence +as to the when, or how of the removal of the stones of the +hypothetical “Corporation cairn,” or “round +tower with very thick walls,” <a name="citation46b"></a><a +href="#footnote46b" class="citation">[46b]</a> or “watch +tower,” which is supposed to have been erected above the +wooden sub-structure <!-- page 47--><a name="page47"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 47</span>at Dumbuck. He tentatively +suggests that the stones may have been used, perhaps, for the +stone causeway now laid along the bank of the recently made +canal, from a point close to the crannog to the railway. No +record is cited. He now offers guesses as to the stones +“in the so-called pavements and causeways.” +First, the causeways may have probably been made “during +the construction of the tower with its central pole,” (here +the cairn is a habitable beacon, habitable on all hypotheses,) +or, again, “perhaps at the time of its demolition” +about which demolition we know nothing, <a +name="citation47a"></a><a href="#footnote47a" +class="citation">[47a]</a> except that the most of the stones are +not now <i>in situ.</i></p> +<p>Several authentic stone crannogs in Scotland, as to which we +have information, possessed no central pole, but had a stone +causeway, still extant, leading, <i>e.g.</i> from the crannog to +the shore of the Ashgrove loch, “a causeway of rough blocks +of sandstone slabs.” <a name="citation47b"></a><a +href="#footnote47b" class="citation">[47b]</a> If one stone +crannog had a stone causeway, why should this ancient inhabited +cairn or round tower not possess a stone causeway? Though +useless at high water, at low water it would afford better +going. In a note to <i>Ivanhoe</i>, and in his Northern +tour of 1814, Scott describes a stone causeway to a broch on an +artificial island <!-- page 48--><a name="page48"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 48</span>in Loch Cleik-him-in, near +Lerwick. Now this loch, says Scott, was, at the time when +the broch was inhabited, open to the flow of tide water.</p> +<p>As people certainly did live on these structures of Langbank +and Dunbuie during the broch and crannog age (centuries 5-12) it +really matters not to our purpose <i>why</i> they did so, or +<i>how</i> they did so. Let us suppose that the circular +wall of the stone superstructure slanted inwards, as is not +unusual. In that case the habitable area at the top may be +reduced to any extent that is thought probable, with this +limitation:—the habitable space must not be too small for +the accommodation of the persons who filled up the eastern third +of an area of from twelve to fourteen feet in breadth, and in +some places a foot in thickness, with a veritable kitchen-midden, +of “broken and partially burned bones of various animals, +shells of edible molluscs, and a quantity of ashes and charcoal . +. . .” <a name="citation48"></a><a href="#footnote48" +class="citation">[48]</a></p> +<p>But Dr. Munro assures me that the remains discovered could be +deposited in a few years of regular occupancy by two or three +persons.</p> +<p>The structure certainly yielded habitable space enough to +accommodate the persons who, in the fifth to twelfth centuries, +left these traces of their <!-- page 49--><a +name="page49"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +49</span>occupancy. Beyond that fact I do not pretend to +estimate the habitable area.</p> +<p>Why did these people live on this structure in the fifth to +twelfth centuries? Almost certainly, not for the purpose of +directing the navigation of the Clyde. At that early date, +which I think we may throw far back in the space of the six +centuries of the estimate, or may even throw further back still, +the Clyde was mainly navigated by canoes of two feet or so in +depth, though we ought to have statistics of remains of larger +vessels discovered in the river bed. <a name="citation49a"></a><a +href="#footnote49a" class="citation">[49a]</a> I think we +may say that the finances of Glasgow, in St. Kentigern’s +day, about 570-600 <span class="smcap">a.d.</span>, would not be +applied to the construction of Dr. Munro’s “tower +with its central pole and very thick walls” <a +name="citation49b"></a><a href="#footnote49b" +class="citation">[49b]</a> erected merely for the purpose of +warning canoes off shoals in the Clyde.</p> +<p>That the purpose of the erection was to direct the navigation +of Clyde by canoes, or by the long vessels of the Viking raiders, +appears to me improbable. I offer, <i>periculo meo</i>, a +different conjecture, <!-- page 50--><a name="page50"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 50</span>of which I shall show reason to +believe that Dr. Munro may not disapprove.</p> +<p>The number of the dwellers in the structure, and the duration +of their occupancy, does not affect my argument. If two +natives, in a very few years, could deposit the “veritable +kitchen midden,” with all the sawn horns, bone implements, +and other undisputed relics, we must suppose that the term of +occupancy was very brief, or not continuous, and that the stone +structure “with very thick walls like the brochs” +represented labours which were utilised for a few years, or +seldom. My doubt is as to whether the structure was +intended for the benefit of navigators of the Clyde—in +shallow canoes!</p> +<h2><!-- page 51--><a name="page51"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +51</span>IX—A GUESS AT THE POSSIBLE PURPOSE OF LANGBANK AND +DUMBUCK</h2> +<p>The Dumbuck structure, when occupied, adjoined and commanded a +<i>ford</i> across the undeepened Clyde of uncommercial +times. So Sir Arthur Mitchell informs us. <a +name="citation51a"></a><a href="#footnote51a" +class="citation">[51a]</a> The Langbank structure, as I +understand, is opposite to that of Dumbuck on the southern side +of the river. If two strongly built structures large enough +for occupation exist on opposite sides of a ford, their purpose +is evident: they guard the ford, like the two stone camps on each +side of the narrows of the Avon at Clifton.</p> +<p>Dr. Munro, on the other hand, says, “the smallness of +the habitable area on both “sites” puts them out of +the category of military forts.” <a +name="citation51b"></a><a href="#footnote51b" +class="citation">[51b]</a> My suggestion is that the +structure was so far “military” as is implied in its +being occupied, <!-- page 52--><a name="page52"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 52</span>with Langbank on the opposite bank of +Clyde by keepers of the ford. In 1901 Dr. Munro wrote, +“even the keepers of the watch-tower at the ford of Dumbuck +had their quern, and ground their own corn.” <a +name="citation52a"></a><a href="#footnote52a" +class="citation">[52a]</a> This idea has therefore passed +through Dr. Munro’s mind, though I did not know the fact +till after I had come to the same hypothesis. The habitable +area was therefore, adequate to the wants of these festive +people. I conjecture that these “keepers of the +watch-tower at the ford” were military “watchers of +the ford,” for that seems to me less improbable than that +“a round tower with very thick walls, <a +name="citation52b"></a><a href="#footnote52b" +class="citation">[52b]</a> like the brochs and other forts of +North Britain,” was built in the interests of the +navigation of Clyde at a very remote period. <a +name="citation52c"></a><a href="#footnote52c" +class="citation">[52c]</a></p> +<p>But really all this is of no importance to the argument. +People lived in these sites, perhaps as early as 400 <span +class="smcap">a.d.</span> or earlier. Such places of safety +were sadly needed during the intermittent and turbulent Roman +occupation.</p> +<h2><!-- page 53--><a name="page53"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +53</span>X—THE LAST DAY AT OLD DUMBUCK</h2> +<p>Suppose the sites were occupied by the watchers of the +ford. There they lived, no man knows how long, on their +perch over the waters of Clyde. They dwelt at top of a +stone structure some eight feet above low water mark, for they +could not live on the ground floor, of which the walls, fifty +feet thick at the base, defied the waves of the high tides driven +by the west wind.</p> +<p>There our friends lived, and probably tatooed themselves, and +slew <i>Bos Longifrons</i> and the deer that, in later ages, +would have been forbidden game to them. If I may trust +Bede, born in 672, and finishing his History in 731, our friends +were Picts, and spoke a now unknown language, <i>not</i> that of +the Bretonnes, or Cymri, or Welsh, who lived on the northern side +of the Firth of Clyde. Or the occupants of Dumbuck, on the +north side of the river, were Cymri; those of Langbank, on the +south side, were Picts. I may at once <!-- page 54--><a +name="page54"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 54</span>say that I +decline to be responsible for Bede, and his ethnology, but he +lived nearer to those days than we do.</p> +<p>With their ladder of fifteen feet long, a slab of oak, split +from the tree by wedges, and having six holes chopped out of the +solid for steps, they climbed to their perch, the first floor of +their abode. I never heard of a ladder made in this way, +but the Zuñis used simply to cut notches for the feet in +the trunk of a tree, and “sich a getting up stairs” +it must have been, when there was rain, and the notches were +wet!</p> +<p>Time passed, the kitchen midden grew, and the Cymri founded +Ailcluith, “Clyde rock,” now Dumbarton; “to +this day,” says Bede, “the strongest city of the +Britons.” <a name="citation54"></a><a href="#footnote54" +class="citation">[54]</a> Then the Scots came, and turned +the Britons out; and St. Columba came, and St. Kentigern from +Wales (573-574), and began to spread the Gospel among the pagan +Picts and Cymri. Stone amulets and stone idols, (if the +disputed objects are idols and amulets,) “have had their +day,” (as Bob Acres says “Damns have had their +day,”) and, with Ailcluith in Scots’ hands, +“’twas time for us to go” thought the Picts and +Cymri of Langbank and Dumbuck.</p> +<p><!-- page 55--><a name="page55"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +55</span>Sadly they evacuate their old towers or cairns before +the Scots who now command the Dumbuck ford from Dumbarton. +They cross to land on their stone causeway at low water. +They abandon the old canoe in the little dock where it was found +by Mr. Bruce. They throw down the venerable ladder. +They leave behind only the canoe, the deer horns, +stone-polishers, sharpened bones, the lower stone of a quern, and +the now obsolete, or purely folk-loreish stone +“amulets,” or “pendants,” and the +figurines, which to call “idols” is unscientific, +while to call them “totems” is to display +“facetious and rejoicing ignorance.” Dr. Munro +merely quotes this foolish use of the term totem by others.</p> +<p>These old things the evicted Picts and Cymri abandoned, while +they carried with them their more valuable property, their Early +Iron axes and knives, their treasured bits of red “Samian +ware,” inherited from Roman times, their amber beads, and +the rest of their bibelots, down to the minutest fragment of +pottery.</p> +<p>Or it may not have been so: the conquering Scots may have +looted the cairns, and borne the Pictish cairn-dwellers into +captivity.</p> +<p>Looking at any broch, or hill fort, or crannog, the fancy +dwells on the last day of its occupation: the day when the canoe +was left to subside into <!-- page 56--><a +name="page56"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 56</span>the mud and +decaying vegetable matter of the loch. In changed times, in +new conditions, the inhabitants move away to houses less damp, +and better equipped with more modern appliances. I see the +little troop, or perhaps only two natives, cross the causeway, +while the Minstrel sings in Pictish or Welsh a version of</p> +<blockquote><p>“The Auld Hoose, the Auld Hoose,<br /> +What though the rooms were sma’,<br /> +Wi’ six feet o’ diameter,<br /> +And a rung gaun through the ha’!”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>The tears come to my eyes, as I think of the Last Day of Old +Dumbuck, for, take it as you will, there <i>was</i> a last day of +Dumbuck, as of windy Ilios, and of “Carthage left deserted +of the sea.”</p> +<p>So ends my little idyllic interlude, and, if I am wrong, blame +Venerable Bede!</p> +<h2><!-- page 57--><a name="page57"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +57</span>XI—MY THEORY OF PROVISIONAL DATE</h2> +<p>Provisionally, and for the sake of argument merely, may I +suggest that the occupancy of these sites may be dated by me, +about 300-550 <span class="smcap">a.d.</span>? That date is +well within the Iron Age: iron had long been known and used in +North Britain. But to the non-archaeological reader, the +terms Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, are apt to prove +misleading. The early Iron Age, like the Bronze Age, was +familiar with the use of implements of stone. In the +Scottish crannogs, admirably described by Dr. Munro, in his +<i>Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings</i>, were found implements of +flint, a polished stone axe-head, an iron knife at the same +lowest level, finger rings of gold, a forged English coin of the +sixth or seventh century <span class="smcap">a.d.</span>, +well-equipped canoes (a common attendant of crannogs), the +greater part of a stone inscribed with concentric circles, a +cupped stone, and a large quartz crystal of the kind which +Apaches in North <!-- page 58--><a name="page58"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 58</span>America, and the Euahlayi tribe in +New South Wales, use in crystal gazing. In early ages, +after the metals had been worked, stone, bronze, and iron were +still used as occasion served, just as the Australian black will +now fashion an implement in “palaeolithic” wise, with +a few chips; now will polish a weapon in “neolithic” +fashion; and, again, will chip a fragment of glass with wonderful +delicacy; or will put as good an edge as he can on a piece of +hoop iron.</p> +<p>I venture, then, merely for the sake of argument, to date the +origin of the Clyde sites in the dark years of unrecorded turmoil +which preceded and followed the Roman withdrawal. The least +unpractical way of getting nearer to their purpose is the careful +excavation of a structure of wood and stone near Eriska, where +Prince Charles landed in 1745. Dr. Munro has seen and +described this site, but is unable to explain it. Certainly +it cannot be a Corporation cairn.</p> +<h2><!-- page 59--><a name="page59"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +59</span>XII—THE DISPUTED OBJECTS</h2> +<p>We now approach the disputed and very puzzling objects found +in the three Clyde sites. My object is, not to demonstrate +that they were actually fashioned in, say, 410-550 <span +class="smcap">a.d.</span>, or that they were relics of an age far +more remote, but merely to re-state the argument of Dr. Joseph +Anderson, Keeper of the Scottish National Museum, and of Sir +Arthur Mitchell, both of them most widely experienced and +sagacious archaeologists. They play the waiting game, and +it may be said that they “sit upon the fence”; I am +proud to occupy a railing in their company. Dr. Anderson +spoke at a meeting of the Scots Society of Antiquaries, May 14, +1900, when Mr. Bruce read a paper on Dumbuck, and exhibited the +finds. “With regard to the relics, he said that there +was nothing exceptional in the chronological <!-- page 60--><a +name="page60"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 60</span>horizon of a +portion of them from both sites (Dumbuck and Dunbuie), but as +regards another portion, he could find no place for it in any +archaeological series, as it had ‘no recognisable affinity +with any objects found anywhere else.’”</p> +<p>“For my part,” said Dr. Anderson, (and he has not +altered his mind,) “I do not consider it possible or +necessary in the meantime that there should be a final +pronouncement on these questions. In the absence of +decisive evidence, which time may supply, I prefer to suspend my +judgment—merely placing the suspected objects (as they +place themselves) in the list of things that must wait for +further evidence, because they contradict present +experience. It has often happened that new varieties of +things have been regarded with suspicion on account of their lack +of correspondence with things previously known, and that the +lapse of time has brought corroboration of their genuineness +through fresh discoveries. If time brings no such +corroboration, they still remain in their proper classification +as things whose special character has not been confirmed by +archaeological experience.”</p> +<p>Sir Arthur Mitchell spoke in the same sense, advising +suspension of judgment, and that we should await the results of +fresh explorations both <!-- page 61--><a name="page61"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 61</span>at Dumbuck and elsewhere. <a +name="citation61"></a><a href="#footnote61" +class="citation">[61]</a> Dr. Murray said that the disputed +finds “are puzzling, but we need not condemn them because +we do not understand them.” Dr. Munro will not +suspend <i>his</i> judgment: the objects, he declares, are +spurious.</p> +<h2><!-- page 62--><a name="page62"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +62</span>XIII—METHOD OF INQUIRY</h2> +<p>I remarked, early in this tract, that “with due +deference, and with doubt, I think Dr. Munro’s methods +capable of modification.” I meant that I prefer, +unlike Dr. Munro in this case, to extend the archaeological gaze +beyond the limits of things already known to occur in the +Scottish area which—by the way—must contain many +relics still unknown. I</p> +<blockquote><p>“Let Observation with extensive view<br /> +Survey mankind from China to Peru,”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>to discover whether objects analogous to those under dispute +occur anywhere among early races of the past or present. +This kind of wide comparison is the method of Anthropology. +Thus Prof. Rhys and others find so very archaic an institution as +the reckoning of descent in the female line,—inheritance +going through the Mother,—among the Picts of Scotland, and +they even find traces of totemism, an institution already outworn +<!-- page 63--><a name="page63"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +63</span>among several of the naked tribes of Australia, who +reckon descent in the male line.</p> +<p>Races do not, in fact, advance on a straight and unbroken +highway of progress. You find that the Kurnai of Australia +are more civilised, as regards the evolution of the modern +Family, than were the Picts who built crannogs and dug canoes, +and cultivated the soil, and had domesticated animals, and used +iron, all of them things that the Kurnai never dreamed of +doing.</p> +<p>As to traces of Totemism in Scotland and Ireland, I am not +persuaded by Professor Rhys that they occur, and are attested by +Celtic legends about the connection of men and kinships with +animals, and by personal and kinship names derived from +animals. The question is very obscure. <a +name="citation63"></a><a href="#footnote63" +class="citation">[63]</a> But as the topic of Totemism has +been introduced, I may say that many of the mysterious archaic +markings on rocks, and decorations of implements, in other +countries, are certainly known to be a kind of shorthand design +of the totem animal. Thus a circle, whence proceeds a line +ending in a triple fork, represents the raven totem in North +America: another design, to our eyes meaningless, stands for the +wolf totem; a <!-- page 64--><a name="page64"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 64</span>third design, a set of bands on a +spear shaft, does duty for the gerfalcon totem, and so on. <a +name="citation64a"></a><a href="#footnote64a" +class="citation">[64a]</a> Equivalent marks, such as +spirals, and tracks of emu’s feet, occur on sacred stones +found round the graves of Australian blacks on the Darling +River. They were associated with rites which the oldest +blacks decline to explain. The markings are understood to +be totemic. Occasionally they are linear, as in Ogam +writing. <a name="citation64b"></a><a href="#footnote64b" +class="citation">[64b]</a></p> +<p>Any one who is interested in the subject of the origin, in +certain places, of the patterns, may turn to Mr. Haddon’s +<i>Evolution of Art</i>. <a name="citation64c"></a><a +href="#footnote64c" class="citation">[64c]</a> Mr. Haddon +shows how the Portuguese pattern of horizontal triangles is, in +the art of the uncivilised natives of Brazil, meant to represent +bats. <a name="citation64d"></a><a href="#footnote64d" +class="citation">[64d]</a> A cross, dotted, within a +circle, is directly derived, through several stages, from a +representation of an alligator. <a name="citation64e"></a><a +href="#footnote64e" class="citation">[64e]</a></p> +<p>We cannot say whether or not the same pattern, found at +Dumbuck, in Central Australia, and in tropical America, arose in +the “schematising” of the same object in nature, in +all three regions, or not. Without direct evidence, we +cannot assign a meaning to the patterns.</p> +<h2><!-- page 65--><a name="page65"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +65</span>XIV—THE POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF THE MARKS AND +OBJECTS</h2> +<p>My private opinion as to the meaning of the archaic marks and +the Clyde objects which bear them, has, in part by my own fault, +been misunderstood by Dr. Munro. He bases an argument on +the idea that I suppose the disputed “pendants” to +have had, in Clydesdale, precisely the same legendary, customary, +and magical significance as the stone churinga of the Arunta +tribe in Australia. That is not my theory. Dr. Munro +quotes me, without indicating the source, (which, I learn, is my +first letter on the subject to the <i>Glasgow Herald</i>, Jan. +10th, 1899), as saying that the Clyde objects “are in +absolutely startling agreement” with the Arunta +<i>churinga</i>. <a name="citation65"></a><a href="#footnote65" +class="citation">[65]</a></p> +<p>Doubtless, before I saw the objects, I thus overstated my +case, in a letter to a newspaper, in 1899. <!-- page +66--><a name="page66"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 66</span>But +in my essay originally published in the <i>Contemporary +Review</i>, (March 1899,) and reprinted in my book, <i>Magic and +Religion</i>, of 1901, <a name="citation66"></a><a +href="#footnote66" class="citation">[66]</a> I stated my real +opinion. This is a maturely considered account of my views +as they were in 1899-1901, and, unlike old newspaper +correspondence, is easily accessible to the student. It is +<i>not</i> “out of print.” I compared the +Australian marks on small stones and on rock walls, and other +“fixtures in the landscape,” with the markings on +Scottish boulders, rock walls, cists, and so forth, and also with +the marks on the disputed objects. I added “the +startling analogy between Australia and old Scottish markings +<i>saute aux yeux</i>,” and I spoke truth. Down to +the designs which represent footmarks, the analogy is +“startling,” is of great interest, and was never +before made the subject of comment.</p> +<p>I said that we could not know whether or not the markings, in +Scotland and Australia, had the same meaning.</p> +<p>As to my opinion, then, namely that we cannot say what is the +significance of an archaic pattern in Scotland, or elsewhere, +though we may know the meaning assigned to it in Central +Australia, there can no longer be any mistake. I take the +blame of having misled Dr. Munro by an unguarded <!-- page +67--><a name="page67"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +67</span>expression in a letter to the Society of Scottish +Antiquaries, <a name="citation67"></a><a href="#footnote67" +class="citation">[67]</a> saying that, if the disputed objects +were genuine, they implied the survival, on Clyde, “of a +singularly archaic set of ritual and magical ideas,” namely +those peculiar to the Arunta and Kaitish tribes of Central +Australia. But that was a slip of the pen, merely.</p> +<p>This being the case, I need not reply to arguments of Dr. +Munro (pp. 248-250) against an hypothesis which no instructed +person could entertain, beginning with the assumption that from +an unknown centre, some people who held Arunta ideas migrated to +Central Australia, and others to the Clyde. Nobody supposes +that the use of identical or similar patterns, and of stones of +superstitious purpose, implies community of race. These +things may anywhere be independently evolved, and in different +regions may have quite different meanings, if any; while the use +of “charm stones” or witch stones, is common among +savages, and survives, in England and Scotland, to this +day. The reader will understand that I am merely applying +Mr. E. B. Tylor’s method of the study of “survivals +in culture,” which all anthropologists have used since the +publication of Mr. Tylor’s <i>Primitive Culture</i>, +thirty-five years ago.</p> +<h2><!-- page 68--><a name="page68"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +68</span>XV—QUESTION OF METHOD CONTINUED</h2> +<p>What is admitted to be true of survivals in the Family among +the Picts may also be true as to other survivals in art, +superstition, and so forth. I would, therefore, compare the +disputed Clyde objects with others analogous to them, of known or +unknown purpose, wheresoever they may be found. I am +encouraged in this course by observing that it is pursued, for +example, by the eminent French archaeologist, Monsieur +Cartailhac, in his book <i>Les Ages Préhistoriques de +France et d’Espagne</i>. He does not hesitate, as we +shall see, to compare peculiar objects found in France or Spain, +with analogous objects of doubtful purpose, found in America or +the Antilles. M. Cartailhac writes that, to find anything +resembling certain Portuguese “thin plaques of slate in the +form of a crook, or crozier,” he “sought through all +ethnographic material, ancient and modern.” He did +find the parallels to his Portuguese objects, one <!-- page +69--><a name="page69"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 69</span>from +Gaudeloup, the other either French, or from the Antilles. <a +name="citation69"></a><a href="#footnote69" +class="citation">[69]</a></p> +<p>Sir John Evans, again, compares British with Australian +objects; in fact the practice is recognised. I therefore +intend to make use of this comparative method. On the other +hand, Dr. Munro denies that any of my analogies drawn from remote +regions are analogous, and it will be necessary to try to prove +that they are,—that my Australian, American, Portuguese, +and other objects are of the same kind, apparently, as some of +the disputed relics of the Clyde.</p> +<p>If I succeed, one point will be made probable. Either +the Clyde objects are old, or the modern maker knew much more of +archaeology than many of his critics and used his knowledge to +direct his manufacture of spurious things; or he kept coinciding +<i>accidentally</i> with genuine relics of which he knew +nothing.</p> +<h2><!-- page 70--><a name="page70"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +70</span>XVI—MAGIC</h2> +<p>Again, I must push my method beyond that of Dr. Munro, by +considering the subject of Magic, in relation to perforated and +other stones, whether inscribed with designs, or +uninscribed. Among the disputed objects are many such +stones, and it is legitimate for me to prove, not only that they +occur in many sites of ancient life, but that their magical uses +are still recognised, or were very recently recognised in the +British Folk-lore of to-day.</p> +<p>A superstition which has certainly endured to the nineteenth +century may obviously have existed among the Picts, or whoever +they were, of the crannog and broch period on Clyde. The +only <i>a priori</i> objection is the absence of such objects +among finds made on British soil, but our discoveries cannot be +exhaustive: time may reveal other examples, and already we have a +few examples, apart from the objects in dispute.</p> +<h2><!-- page 71--><a name="page71"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +71</span>XVII—DISPUTED OBJECTS CLASSIFIED</h2> +<p>Dr. Munro classifies the disputed objects as <i>Weapons</i>, +<i>Implements</i>, “<i>Amulets</i>” <i>or +Pendants</i>, <i>Cup-and-Ring Stones</i>, “<i>Human +Figurines or Idols</i>.”</p> +<p>For reasons of convenience, and because what I heard about +group 3, the “amulets or pendants” first led me into +this discussion, I shall here first examine them. Dr. Munro +reproduces some of them in one plate (xv. p. 228). He does +not say by what process they are reproduced; merely naming them . +. . “objects of slate and stone from Dumbuck.”</p> +<p>Dr. Munro describes the “amulets” or +“pendants” thus:</p> +<blockquote><p>“The largest group of objects (plate <span +class="smcap">xv.</span>) consists of the so-called amulets or +pendants of stone, shale, and shell, some fifteen to twenty +specimens of which have been preserved and recorded as having +been found on the different stations, viz., three from Dunbuie +(exclusive of a few perforated oyster shells), eleven from +Dumbuck, and one from Langbank. Their ornamentation is +chiefly of the cup-and-ring order, only a few <!-- page 72--><a +name="page72"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 72</span>having +patterns composed of straight lines. Some of them are so +large as to be unfit to be used as amulets or pendants, such, for +example, as that represented by no. 14, which is 9 inches long, +3½ inches broad, and ½ inch thick. The +ornamentation consists of a strongly incised line running +downwards from the perforation with small branch lines directed +alternately right and left. Any human being, who would wear +this object, either as an ornament or religious emblem, would be +endowed with the most archaic ideas of decorative art known in +the history of human civilisation. Yet we can have no doubt +that the individual who manufactured it, if he were an inhabitant +of any of the Clyde sites, was at the same time living in a +period not devoid of culture, and was in possession of excellent +cutting implements, most likely of iron, with which he +manipulated wood, deer-horn, and other substances. These +objects are nearly all perforated, as if intended for suspension, +but sometimes, in addition to this, there is a large central hole +around which there is always an ornamentation, generally +consisting of incised circles or semicircles, with divergent +lines leading into small hollow points, the so-called +cup-marks.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>I shall return to the theory that the stones were +“ornaments”; meanwhile I proceed to the consideration +of “cup-marks” on stones, large or small.</p> +<h2><!-- page 73--><a name="page73"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +73</span>XVIII—CUP MARKS IN CRANNOGS</h2> +<p>As to cup marks, or <i>cupules</i>, little basins styled also +<i>écuelles</i>, now isolated, now grouped, now separate, +now joined by hollowed lines, they are familiar on rocks, funeral +cists, and so forth in Asia, Europe, and North America (and +Australia), as M. Cartailhac remarks in reviewing Dr. +Magni’s work on Cupped Rocks near Como. <a +name="citation73a"></a><a href="#footnote73a" +class="citation">[73a]</a> “Their meaning escapes +us,” says M. Cartailhac.</p> +<p>These cups, or cupules, or <i>écuelles</i> occur, not +only at Dumbuck, but in association with a Scottish crannog of +the Iron age, admirably described by Dr. Munro himself. <a +name="citation73b"></a><a href="#footnote73b" +class="citation">[73b]</a> He found a polished celt, <a +name="citation73c"></a><a href="#footnote73c" +class="citation">[73c]</a> and a cupped stone, and he found a +fragmentary block of red sandstone, about a foot in length, +inscribed with concentric circles, surrounding a cup. The +remainder of the stone, with the smaller part of the design, was +not found.</p> +<p><!-- page 74--><a name="page74"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +74</span>Here, then, we have these archaic patterns and marks on +isolated stones, one of them about 13 inches long, in a genuine +Scottish crannog, of the genuine Iron age, while flint celts also +occur, and objects of bronze. Therefore cup markings, and +other archaic markings are not unknown or suspicious things in a +genuine pile structure in Scotland. Why, then, suspect them +at Dumbuck? At Dumbuck the cups occur on a triangular block +of sandstone, 14½ inches long and 4 inches thick. +Another cupped block is of 21½ inches by 16½. <a +name="citation74"></a><a href="#footnote74" +class="citation">[74]</a></p> +<p>No forger brought these cupped stones in his waistcoat +pocket.</p> +<p>We have thus made good the point that an isolated cupped +stone, and an isolated stone inscribed with concentric circles +round a cup, do occur in a crannog containing objects of the +stone, bronze, and iron ages. The meaning, if any, of these +inscribed stones, in the Lochlee crannog, is unknown. Many +of the disputed objects vary from them in size, while presenting +examples of archaic patterns. Are they to be rejected +because they vary in size?</p> +<p>We see that the making of this class of decorative patterns, +whether they originally had a recognised meaning; or whether, +beginning as mere <!-- page 75--><a name="page75"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 75</span>decorations, perhaps +“schematistic” designs of real objects, they later +had an arbitrary symbolic sense imposed upon them, is familiar to +Australians of to-day, who use, indifferently, stone implements +of the neolithic or of the palaeolithic type. We also know +that “in a remote corner of tropical America,” the +rocks are inscribed with patterns “typically identical with +those engraved in the British rocks.” <a +name="citation75"></a><a href="#footnote75" +class="citation">[75]</a> These markings are in the country +of the Chiriquis, an extinct gold-working neolithic people, very +considerable artists, especially in the making of painted +ceramics. The Picts and Scots have left nothing at all +approaching to their pottery work.</p> +<p>These identical patterns, therefore, have been independently +evolved in places most remote in space and in stage of +civilisation, while in Galloway, as I shall show, I have seen +some of them scrawled in chalk on the flag stones in front of +cottage doors. The identity of many Scottish and Australian +patterns is undenied, while I disclaim the opinion that, in each +region, they had the same significance.</p> +<p>I have now established the coincidence between the markings of +rocks in Australia, in tropical America, and in Scotland. I +have shown that <!-- page 76--><a name="page76"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 76</span>such markings occur, in Scotland, +associated with remains, in a crannog, of the Age of Iron. +They also occur on stones, large (cupped) and small, in +Dumbuck. My next business is, if I can, to establish, what +Dr. Munro denies, a parallelism between these disputed Clyde +stones, and the larger or smaller inscribed stones of the Arunta +and Kaitish, in Australia, and other small stones, decorated or +plain, found in many ancient European sites. Their meaning +we know not, but probably they were either reckoned ornamental, +or magical, or both.</p> +<h2><!-- page 77--><a name="page77"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +77</span>XIX—PARALLELISM BETWEEN THE DISPUTED OBJECTS AND +OTHER OBJECTS ELSEWHERE</h2> +<p>On Clyde (if the disputed things be genuine) we find decorated +plaques or slabs of soft stone, of very various dimensions and +shapes. In Australia some of these objects are round, many +oval, others elongated, others thin and pointed, like a pencil; +others oblong—while on Clyde, some are round, one is +coffin-shaped, others are palette-shaped, others are pear-shaped +(the oval tapering to one extremity), one is triangular, one is +oblong. <a name="citation77"></a><a href="#footnote77" +class="citation">[77]</a> In Australia, as on Clyde, the +stones bear some of the archaic markings common on the rock faces +both in Scotland and in Central Australia: on large rocks they +are <i>painted</i>, in Australia, in Scotland they are +<i>incised</i>. I maintain that there is a singularly +strong analogy between the two sets of circumstances, Scottish +and Australian; large rocks <!-- page 78--><a +name="page78"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 78</span>inscribed +with archaic designs; smaller stones inscribed with some of these +designs. Is it not so? Dr. Munro, on the other hand, +asserts that there is no such parallelism.</p> +<p>But I must point out that there is, to some extent, an +admitted parallelism. “The familiar designs which +served as models to the Clyde artists”—“plain +cups and rings, with or without gutter channels, spirals, +circles, concentric circles, semicircles, horseshoe and +harp-shaped figures, etc.,” occur, or a selection of them +occurs, both on the disputed objects, and on the rocks of the +hills. So Dr. Munro truly says (p. 260).</p> +<p>The same marks, plain cups, cups and rings, spirals, +concentric circles, horseshoes, medial lines with short slanting +lines proceeding from them, like the branches on a larch, or the +spine of a fish, occur on the rocks of the Arunta hills, and also +on plaques of stone cherished and called churinga +(“sacred”) by the Arunta. <a name="citation78"></a><a +href="#footnote78" class="citation">[78]</a> Here is what I +call “parallelism.”</p> +<p>Dr. Munro denies this parallelism.</p> +<p>There are, indeed, other parallelisms with markings other than +those of the rocks at Auchentorlie which Dr. Munro regards as the +<!-- page 79--><a name="page79"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +79</span>sources of the faker’s inspiration. Thus, on +objects from Dumbuck (Munro, plate <span class="smcap">xv.</span> +figs, 11 and 12), there are two “signs”: one is a +straight line, horizontal, with three shorter lines under it at +right angles, the other a line with four lines under it. +These signs “are very frequent in Trojan +antiquities,” and on almost all the “hut urns” +found “below the lava at Marino, near Albano, or on ancient +tombs near Corneto.” Whatever they mean, (and Prof. +Sayce finds the former of the two “signs” “as a +Hittite hieroglyph,”) I do not know them at +Auchentorlie. After “a scamper among the surrounding +hills,” the faker may have passed an evening with Dr. +Schliemann’s <i>Troja</i> (1884, pp. 126, 127) and may have +taken a hint from the passages which have just been cited. +Or he may have cribbed the idea of these archaic markings from +Don Manuel de Góngora y Martinez, his <i>Antigüedades +Pre-históricas de Andalucía</i> (Madrid, 1868, p. +65, figures 70, 71). In these Spanish examples the marks +are, clearly, “schematised” or rudimentary designs of +animals, in origin. Our faker is a man of reading. +But, <i>enfin</i>, the world is full of just such markings, which +may have had one meaning here, another there, or may have been +purely decorative. “Race” has nothing to do +with the markings. They are “universally <!-- page +80--><a name="page80"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +80</span>human,” though, in some cases, they may have been +transmitted by one to another people.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p80ab.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 5" src="images/p80as.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>The reader must decide as to whether I have proved my +parallelisms, denied by Dr. Munro, between the Clyde, Australian, +and other markings, whether on rocks or on smaller stones. <a +name="citation80a"></a><a href="#footnote80a" +class="citation">[80a]</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p80b.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 6" src="images/p80b.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>It suffices me to have tried to prove the parallelism between +Australian and Clyde things, and to record Dr. Munro’s +denial thereof—“I unhesitatingly maintain that there +is no parallelism whatever between the two sets of +objects.” <a name="citation80b"></a><a href="#footnote80b" +class="citation">[80b]</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p80c.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 7" src="images/p80c.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<h2><!-- page 81--><a name="page81"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +81</span>XX—UNMARKED CHARM STONES</h2> +<p>It must be kept in mind that churinga, “witch +stones,” “charm stones,” or whatever the +smaller stones may be styled, are not necessarily marked with any +pattern. In Australia, in Portugal, in Russia, in France, +in North America, in Scotland, as we shall see, such stones may +be unmarked, may bear no inscription or pattern. <a +name="citation81"></a><a href="#footnote81" +class="citation">[81]</a> These are plain magic stones, +such as survive in English peasant superstition.</p> +<p>In Dr. Munro’s <i>Ancient Lake Dwellings of Europe</i>, +plain stone discs, perforated, do occur, but rarely, and there +are few examples of pendants with cupped marks. Of these +two, as being cupped pendants, might look like analogues of the +disputed Clyde stones, but Dr. Munro, owing to the subsequent +exposure of the “Horn Age” <!-- page 82--><a +name="page82"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 82</span>forgeries, +now has “a strong suspicion that he was taken in” by +the things. <a name="citation82a"></a><a href="#footnote82a" +class="citation">[82a]</a></p> +<p>To return to Scottish stones.</p> +<p>In Mr. Graham Callander’s essay on perforated stones, <a +name="citation82b"></a><a href="#footnote82b" +class="citation">[82b]</a> he publishes an uninscribed triangular +stone, with a perforation, apparently for suspension. This +is one of several such Scottish stones, and though we cannot +prove it, may have had a superstitious purpose. Happily Sir +Walter Scott discovered and describes the magical use to which +this kind of charm stone was put in 1814. When a person was +unwell, in the Orkney Isles, the people, like many savages, +supposed that a wizard had stolen his heart. “The +parties’ friends resort to a cunning man or woman, who +hangs about the [patient’s] neck a triangular stone in the +shape of a heart.” <a name="citation82c"></a><a +href="#footnote82c" class="citation">[82c]</a> This is a +thoroughly well-known savage superstition, the stealing of the +heart, or vital spirit, and its restoration by magic.</p> +<p>This use of triangular or heart-shaped perforated stones was +not inconsistent with the civilisation of the nineteenth century, +and, of course, was not inconsistent with the civilisation <!-- +page 83--><a name="page83"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +83</span>of the Picts. A stone may have magical purpose, +though it bears no markings. Meanwhile most churinga, and +many of the disputed objects, have archaic markings, which also +occur on rock faces.</p> +<h2><!-- page 84--><a name="page84"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +84</span>XXI—QUALITY OF ART ON THE STONES</h2> +<p>Dr. Munro next reproduces two <i>wooden</i> churinga +(<i>churinga irula</i>), as being very unlike the Clydesdale +objects <i>in stone</i> <a name="citation84a"></a><a +href="#footnote84a" class="citation">[84a]</a> (figures 5, +6). They are: but I was speaking of Australian <i>churinga +nanja</i>, of <i>stone</i>. A stone churinga <a +name="citation84b"></a><a href="#footnote84b" +class="citation">[84b]</a> presented, I think, by Mr. Spencer +through me to the Scottish Society of Antiquaries (also +reproduced by Dr. Munro), is a much better piece of work, as I +saw when it reached me, than most of the Clyde things. +“The Clyde amulets are,” says Dr. Munro, +“neither strictly oval,” (<i>nor are very many +Australian samples</i>,) “nor well finished, nor +symmetrical, being generally water-worn fragments of shale or +clay slate. . . .” They thus resemble ancient Red +Indian pendants.</p> +<p>As to the art of the patterns, the Australians have a +considerable artistic gift; as Grosse <!-- page 85--><a +name="page85"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 85</span>remarks, <a +name="citation85a"></a><a href="#footnote85a" +class="citation">[85a]</a> while either the Clyde folk had less, +or the modern artists had <i>not</i> “some practical +artistic skill.” But Dr. Munro has said that any one +with “some practical artistic skill” could whittle +the Clyde objects. <a name="citation85b"></a><a +href="#footnote85b" class="citation">[85b]</a> He also +thinks that in one case they “disclose the hand of one not +altogether ignorant of art” (p. 231).</p> +<p>Let me put a crucial question. Are the archaic markings +on the disputed objects better, or worse, or much on a level with +the general run of such undisputably ancient markings on large +rocks, cists, and cairns in Scotland? I think the art in +both cases is on the same low level. When the art on the +disputed objects is more formal and precise, as on some shivered +stones at Dunbuie, “the stiffness of the lines and figures +reminds one more of rule and compass than of the free-hand work +of prehistoric artists.” <a name="citation85c"></a><a +href="#footnote85c" class="citation">[85c]</a> The modern +faker sometimes drew his marks “free-hand,” and +carelessly; sometimes his regularities suggest line and +compass.</p> +<p>Now, as to the use of compasses, a small pair were found with +Late Celtic remains, at Lough Crew, and plaques of bone decorated +by aid of such compasses, were also found, <a +name="citation85d"></a><a href="#footnote85d" +class="citation">[85d]</a> in a cairn of a <!-- page 86--><a +name="page86"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 86</span>set adorned +with the archaic markings, cup and ring, concentric circles, +medial lines with shorter lines sloping from them on either side, +and a design representing, apparently, an early mono-cycle!</p> +<p>For all that I know, a dweller in Dunbuie might have +compasses, like the Lough Crew cairn artist.</p> +<p>If I have established the parallelism between Arunta churinga +nanja and the disputed Clyde “pendants,” which Dr. +Munro denies, we are reduced to one of two theories. Either +the Picts of Clyde, or whoever they were, repeated on stones, +usually small, some of the patterns on the neighbouring rocks; or +the modern faker, for unknown reasons, repeated these and other +archaic patterns on smaller stones. His motive is +inscrutable: the Australian parallels were unknown to European +science,—but he may have used European analogues. On +the other hand, while Dr. Munro admits that the early Clyde +people might have repeated the rock decorations “on small +objects of slate and shale,” he says that the objects +“would have been, even then, as much out of place as +surviving remains of the earlier Scottish civilisation as they +are at the present day.” <a name="citation86"></a><a +href="#footnote86" class="citation">[86]</a></p> +<p><!-- page 87--><a name="page87"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +87</span>How can we assert that magic stones, or any such stone +objects, perforated or not, were necessarily incongruous with +“the earlier Scottish civilisation?” No +civilisation, old or new, is incapable of possessing such stones; +even Scotland, as I shall show, can boast two or three samples, +such as the stone of the Keiss broch, a perfect circle, engraved +with what looks like an attempt at a Runic inscription; and +another in a kind of cursive characters.</p> +<h2><!-- page 88--><a name="page88"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +88</span>XXII—SURVIVAL OF MAGIC OF STONES</h2> +<p>If “incongruous with the earlier Scottish +civilisation” the use of “charm stones” is not +incongruous with the British civilisation of the nineteenth +century.</p> +<p>In the <i>Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries</i> +(Scot.) (1902-1903, p. 166 <i>et seq.</i>) Mr. Graham Callander, +already cited, devotes a very careful essay to such perforated +stones, circular or triangular, or otherwise shaped, found in the +Garioch. They are of slate, or “heather stone,” +and of various shapes and sizes. Their original purpose is +unknown. The perforation, or cup not perforated, is +sometimes in the centre, in a few cases in “near the +end.” Mr. Graham Callander heard of a recent old lady +in Roxburghshire, who kept one of these stones, of irregularly +circular shape, behind the door for luck. <a +name="citation88"></a><a href="#footnote88" +class="citation">[88]</a> “It was always spoken of as +a charm,” though its ancient maker may have intended it for +some prosaic practical use.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p88b.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 8" src="images/p88s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p><!-- page 89--><a name="page89"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +89</span>I take the next example that comes to hand.</p> +<p>“Thin flat oolite stones, having a natural perforation, +are found in abundance on the Yorkshire coast. They are +termed “witch stones,” and are tied to door keys, or +suspended by a string behind the cottage door, “to keep +witches out.” <a name="citation89"></a><a +href="#footnote89" class="citation">[89]</a> “A thin +flat perforated witch stone,” answers to an uninscribed +Arunta churinga; “a magic thing,” and its use +survives in Britain, as in Yorkshire and Roxburghshire. We +know no limit to the persistence of survival of superstitious +things, such as magic stones. This is the familiar lesson +of Anthropology and of Folk Lore, and few will now deny the truth +of the lesson.</p> +<h2><!-- page 90--><a name="page90"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +90</span>XXIII—MODERN SURVIVAL OF MAGICAL WOOD +CHURINGA</h2> +<p>I take another example of modern survival in magic. Dr. +Munro, perhaps, would think wooden churinga, used for magical +ends, “incongruous with the earlier Scottish +civilisation.” But such objects have not proved to be +incongruous with the Scottish civilisation of the nineteenth +century.</p> +<p>The term <i>churinga</i>, “sacred,” is used by the +Arunta to denote not only the stone churinga nanja, a local +peculiarity of the Arunta and Kaitish, but also the decorated and +widely diffused elongated wooden slats called “Bull +Roarers” by the English. These are swung at the end +of a string, and produce a whirring roar, supposed to be the +voice of a supernormal being, all over Australia and +elsewhere.</p> +<p>I am speaking of <i>survivals</i>, and these wooden churinga, +at least, <i>survive</i> in Scotland, and, in <!-- page 91--><a +name="page91"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 91</span>Aberdeenshire +they are, or were lately called “thunner spells” or +“thunder bolts.” “It was believed that +the use of this instrument during a thunderstorm saved one from +being struck by the thunner bolt.” In North and South +America the bull roarer, on the other hand, is used, not to +avert, but magically to produce thunder and lightning. <a +name="citation91"></a><a href="#footnote91" +class="citation">[91]</a> Among the Kaitish thunder is +caused by the churinga of their “sky dweller,” +Atnatu.</p> +<p>Wherever the toy is used for a superstitious purpose, it is, +so far, <i>churinga</i>, and, so far, modern Aberdeenshire had +the same <i>churinga irula</i> as the Arunta. The object +was familiar to palaeolithic man.</p> +<h2><!-- page 92--><a name="page92"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +92</span>XXIV—CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENT FROM SURVIVALS IN +MAGIC</h2> +<p>I have made it perfectly certain that magic stones, +“witch stones,” “charm stones,” and that +<i>churinga irula</i>, wooden magical slats of wood, exist in +Australia and other savage regions, and survive, as magical, into +modern British life. The point is beyond doubt, and it is +beyond doubt that, in many regions, the stones, and the slats of +wood, may be inscribed with archaic markings, or may be +uninscribed. This will be proved more fully later. +Thus Pictish, like modern British civilisation, may assuredly +have been familiar with charm stones. There is no <i>a +priori</i> objection as to the possibility.</p> +<p>Why should Pictish stones <i>not</i> be inscribed with archaic +patterns familiar to the dwellers among inscribed rocks, perhaps +themselves the inscribers of the rocks? Manifestly there is +no <i>a priori</i> improbability. I have seen the <!-- page +93--><a name="page93"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +93</span>archaic patterns of concentric circles and fish spines, +(or whatever we call the medial line with slanting side lines,) +neatly designed in white on the flag stones in front of cottage +doors in Galloway. The cottagers dwelt near the rocks with +similar patterns on the estate of Monreith, but are not likely to +have copied them; the patterns, I presume, were mere survivals in +tradition.</p> +<p>The Picts, or whoever they were, might assuredly use charm +stones, and the only objection to the idea that they might +engrave archaic patterns on them is the absence of record of +similarly inscribed small stones in Britain. The custom of +using magic stones was not at all incongruous with the early +Pictish civilisation, which retained a form of the Family now +long outworn by the civilisation of the Arunta. The sole +objection is that <i>a silentio</i>, silence of archaeological +records as to <i>inscribed</i> small stones. That is not a +closer of discussion, nor is the silence absolute, as I shall +show.</p> +<p>Moreover, the appearance of an unique and previously +unheard-of set of inscribed stones, in a site of the usual broch +and crannog period, is not invariably ascribed to forgery, even +by the most orthodox archaeologists. Thus Sir Francis Terry +found unheard-of things, not to mention “a number of thin +flat circular discs of various <!-- page 94--><a +name="page94"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 94</span>sizes” +in his Caithness brochs. In Wester broch “the most +remarkable things found” were three egg-shaped quartzite +pearls “having their surface painted with spots in a +blackish or blackish-brown pigment.” He also found a +flattish circular disc of sandstone, inscribed with a duck or +other water-fowl, while on one side was an attempt, apparently, +to write runes, on the other an inscription in unknown cursive +characters. There was a boulder of sandstone with nine cup +marks, and there were more painted pebbles, the ornaments now +resembling ordinary cup marks, now taking the shape of a cross, +and now of lines and other patterns, one of which, on an Arunta +rock, is of unknown meaning, among many of known totemic +significance.</p> +<p>Dr. Joseph Anderson compares these to “similar pebbles +painted with a red pigment” which M. Piette found in the +cavern of Mas d’Azil, of which the relics are, in part at +least, palaeolithic, or “mesolithic,” and of dateless +antiquity. In <i>L’Anthropologie</i> (Nov. 1894), Mr. +Arthur Bernard Cook suggests that the pebbles of Mas d’Azil +may correspond to the stone churinga nanja of the Arunta; a few +of which appear to be painted, not incised. I argued, on +the contrary, that things of similar appearance, at Mas +d’Azil: in Central Australia: and in <!-- page 95--><a +name="page95"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 95</span>Caithness, +need not have had the same meaning and purpose. <a +name="citation95a"></a><a href="#footnote95a" +class="citation">[95a]</a></p> +<p>It is only certain that the pebbles of the Caithness brochs +are as absolutely unfamiliar as the inscribed stones of +Dumbuck. But nobody says that the Caithness painted pebbles +are forgeries or modern fabrications. Sauce for the Clyde +goose is not sauce for the Caithness gander. <a +name="citation95b"></a><a href="#footnote95b" +class="citation">[95b]</a></p> +<p>The use of painted pebbles and of inscribed stones, may have +been merely <i>local</i>.</p> +<p>In Australia the stone churinga are now, since 1904, known to +be <i>local</i>, confined to the Arunta “nation,” and +the Kaitish, with very few sporadic exceptions in adjacent +tribes. <a name="citation95c"></a><a href="#footnote95c" +class="citation">[95c]</a></p> +<p>The purely local range of the inscribed stones in Central +Australia, makes one more anxious for further local research in +the Clyde district and south-west coast.</p> +<h2><!-- page 96--><a name="page96"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +96</span>XXV—MY MISADVENTURE WITH THE CHARM STONE</h2> +<p>As Dr. Munro introduces the subject, I may draw another +example of the survival of charm stones, from an amusing +misadventure of my own. I was once entrusted with a charm +stone used in the nineteenth century for the healing of cattle in +the Highlands. An acquaintance of mine, a Mac--- by the +mother’s side, inherited this heirloom with the curious box +patched with wicker-work, which was its Ark. It was exactly +of the shape of a “stone churinga of the Arunta +tribe,” later reproduced by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. <a +name="citation96"></a><a href="#footnote96" +class="citation">[96]</a> On the surfaces of the ends were +faintly traced concentric rings, that well-known pattern. I +wrote in the <i>Glasgow Herald</i> that, “<i>if</i> a +Neolithic amulet, as it appears to be, it <i>may</i> supply the +missing link in my argument,” as being not only <!-- page +97--><a name="page97"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 97</span>a +magic stone (which it certainly was), but a magic stone with +archaic markings. <a name="citation97a"></a><a +href="#footnote97a" class="citation">[97a]</a> At the +British Museum I presently learned the real nature of the object, +to my rueful amusement. It had been the stone pivot of an +old farm-gate, and, in turning on the upper and nether stones, +had acquired the concentric circular marks. Not +understanding what the thing was, the Highland maternal ancestors +of my friend had for generations used it in the magical healing +of cattle, a very pretty case of “survival.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p96ab.jpg"> +<img alt="Figs. 9, 10" src="images/p96as.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>Writing on October 19th, I explained the facts in a letter to +the <i>Glasgow Herald</i>. A pseudonymous person then +averred, in the same journal, that I had “recently told its +readers that I had found the missing link in the chain that was +to bind together the magic stones of the Arunta and the discs, +images, and ‘blue points’ of the Clyde crannog +man.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p96bb.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 11" src="images/p96bs.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>I never told any mortal that I had “found the missing +link!” I said that “<i>if</i>” the stone +be Neolithic, it “<i>may</i>” be the missing link in +my argument. Dr. Munro prints the pseudonymous letter with +approval, but does not correct the inaccurate statement of the +writer. <a name="citation97b"></a><a href="#footnote97b" +class="citation">[97b]</a> Dr. Munro, I need not say, +argues with as much candour as <!-- page 98--><a +name="page98"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 98</span>courtesy, and +the omission of the necessary correction is an oversight.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p96cb.jpg"> +<img alt="Figs. 12, 13" src="images/p96cs.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>However, here was a survival of the use of charm stones, and I +think that, had the stone been uninscribed (as it was +accidentally inscribed with concentric circles by turning in its +stone sockets), my friend’s Highland ancestors might have +been less apt to think it a fairy thing, and use it in cattle +healing.</p> +<p>I trust that I have now established my parallelisms. The +archaic patterns of countries now civilised and of savage +countries are assuredly parallel. The use of charm stones +in civilisation and savagery is assuredly parallel. The +application to these stones of the archaic patterns, by a rude +race in Clydesdale, familiar with the patterns on rocks in the +district, has in it nothing <i>a priori</i> improbable.</p> +<h2><!-- page 99--><a name="page99"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +99</span>XXVI—EUROPEAN PARALLELS TO THE DISPUTED +OBJECTS</h2> +<p>I am not so sure as Dr. Munro is that we have not found small +perforated stones, sometimes inscribed with archaic patterns, +sometimes plain, even in Scotland; I shall later mention other +places. For the present I leave aside the small stone, +inscribed with concentric horse-shoes, and found in a hill-fort +near Tarbert (Kintyre), which a friend already spoken of saw, and +of which he drew for me a sketch from memory. In country +houses any intrinsically valueless object of this kind is apt to +fall out of sight and be lost beyond recovery.</p> +<p>Sir John Evans, however, in his work on <i>Ancient Stone +Implements</i>, p. 463 (1897), writes: “A pendant, +consisting of a flat pear-shaped piece of shale, 2½ inches +long, and 2 inches broad, and perforated at the narrow end, was +found along with querns, stones with concentric <!-- page +100--><a name="page100"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +100</span>circles, and cup-shaped indentations worked in them; +stone balls, spindle whorls, and an iron axe-head, in excavating +an underground chamber at the Tappock, Torwood, +Stirlingshire. One face of this pendant was covered with +scratches in a vandyked pattern. Though of smaller size +this seems to bear some analogy with the flat amulets of schist +of which several have been discovered in Portugal, with one face +ornamented in much the same manner.”</p> +<p>For these examples Sir John Evans refers to the +<i>Transactions of the Ethnological Society</i>. <a +name="citation100a"></a><a href="#footnote100a" +class="citation">[100a]</a></p> +<p>If by “a vandyked pattern,” Sir John means, as I +suppose, a pattern of triangles in horizontal lines (such as the +Portuguese patterns on stone plaques), then the elements of this +form of decoration appear to have been not unfamiliar to the +designers of “cups and rings.” On the cover of +a stone cist at Carnwath we see inscribed concentric rings, and +two large equilateral triangles, each containing three contingent +triangles, round a square space, uninscribed. <a +name="citation100b"></a><a href="#footnote100b" +class="citation">[100b]</a> The photograph of the Tappock +stone (figs. 9, 10), shows that the marks are not of a regular +vandyked pattern, but are <!-- page 101--><a +name="page101"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 101</span>rather +scribbles, like those on a Portuguese perforated stone, given by +Vasconcellos, and on a Canadian stone pendant, published by Mr. +David Boyle (figs. 12, 13).</p> +<p>Sir John Evans does not reject the pear-shaped object of +shale, “a pendant,” found in a Scottish site, and +associated with querns, and an iron axe, and cup and ring +stones. Sir John sees no harm in the “pendant,” +but Dr. Munro rejects a “pear-shaped” claystone +“pendant” decorated with “cup-shaped +indentations,” found at Dunbuie. <a +name="citation101"></a><a href="#footnote101" +class="citation">[101]</a> It has a perforation near each +end, as is common in North American objects of similar nature +(see fig. 11).</p> +<p>Why should the schist pendant of the Tappock chamber be all +right, if the claystone pendant of Dunbuie be all wrong? +One of them seems to me to have as good a claim to our respectful +consideration as the other, and, like Sir John Evans, I shall now +turn to Portugal in search of similar objects of undisputed +authenticity.</p> +<h2><!-- page 102--><a name="page102"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 102</span>XXVII—PORTUGUESE AND OTHER +STONE PENDANTS</h2> +<p>M. Cartailhac, the very eminent French archaeologist, found +not in Portugal, but in the Cevennes, “plaques of slate, +sometimes pierced with a hole for suspension, usually smaller +than those of the Casa da Moura, not ornamented, <i>yet certainly +analogous with these</i>.” <a name="citation102a"></a><a +href="#footnote102a" class="citation">[102a]</a> These are +also analogous with “engraved plaques of schist found in +prehistoric sites of the Rio Negro,” “some +resembling, others identical with those shewn at Lisbon by Carlos +Ribeiro.” But the Rio Negro objects appear doubtful. +<a name="citation102b"></a><a href="#footnote102b" +class="citation">[102b]</a></p> +<p>Portugal has many such plaques, some adorned with designs, and +some plain. <a name="citation102c"></a><a href="#footnote102c" +class="citation">[102c]</a> The late Don Estacio da Veiga +devotes a chapter to them, as <!-- page 103--><a +name="page103"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 103</span>if they +were things peculiar to Portugal, in Europe. <a +name="citation103a"></a><a href="#footnote103a" +class="citation">[103a]</a> When they are decorated the +ornament is usually linear; in two cases <a +name="citation103b"></a><a href="#footnote103b" +class="citation">[103b]</a> lines incised lead to +“cups.” One plaque is certainly meant to +represent the human form. M. Cartailhac holds that all the +plaques with a “vandyked” pattern in triangles, +without faces, “are, none the less, <i>des +représentations stylisées de silhouette +humaine</i>.” <a name="citation103c"></a><a +href="#footnote103c" class="citation">[103c]</a></p> +<p>Illustrations give an idea of them (figs. 14, 15, 16); they +are more elaborate than the perforated inscribed plaques of shale +or schist from Dumbuck. Two perforated stone plaques from +Volósova, figured by Dr. Munro (pp. 78, 79), fall into +line with other inscribed plaques from Portugal. Of these +Russian objects referred to by Dr. Munro, one is (his fig. 25) a +roughly pear-shaped thing in flint, perforated at the thin end; +the other is a formless stone plaque, inscribed with a cross, +three circles, not concentric, and other now meaningless +scratches. It is not perforated. Dr. Munro does not +dispute the genuine character of many strange figurines in flint, +from Volósova, though the redoubtable M. de Mortillet +denounced them as forgeries; they had the misfortune to +corroborate <!-- page 104--><a name="page104"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 104</span>other Italian finds against which M. +de Mortillet had a grudge. But Dr. Munro thinks that the +two plaques of Volósova may have been made for sale by +knavish boys. In that case the boys fortuitously coincided, +in their fake, with similar plaques, of undoubted antiquity, and, +in some prehistoric Egyptian stones, occasionally inscribed with +mere wayward scratches.</p> +<p>For these reasons I think the Volósova plaques as +genuine as any other objects from that site, and corroborative, +so far, of similar things from Clyde.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p104b.jpg"> +<img alt="Figs. 14, 15" src="images/p104s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>To return to Portugal, M. Cartailhac recognises that the +<i>plain</i> plaques of slate from sites in the Cevennes +“are certainly analogous” with the plaques from the +Casa da Moura, even when these are elaborately ornamented with +vandyked and other patterns. I find one published case of a +Portuguese plaque with cups and ducts, as at Dumbuck (fig. +16). Another example is in <i>Antiguedades Prehistoricas de +Andalucia</i>, p. 109. <a name="citation104"></a><a +href="#footnote104" class="citation">[104]</a> However, Dr. +Munro leaves the Cevennes Andalusian, and Portuguese plaques out +of his argument.</p> +<p>M. Cartailhac, then, found inscribed and perforated slate +tablets “very common in Portugues neolithic +sepulchres.” The perforated holes <!-- page 105--><a +name="page105"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 105</span>showed +signs of long wear from attachment to something or +somebody. One, from New Jersey, with two holes, exactly as +in the Dunbuie example, was much akin in ornament to the +Portuguese plaques. One, of slate, was plain, as plain as +“a bit of gas coal with a round hole bored through +it,” recorded by Dr. Munro from Ashgrove Loch +crannog. A perforated shale, or slate, or schist or gas +coal plaque, as at Ashgrove Loch, ornamented or plain, is +certainly like another shale schist or slate plaque, plain or +inscribed. We have shown that these occur in France, +Portugal, Russia, America, and Scotland, not to speak of Central +Australia.</p> +<p>My suggestion is that, if the Clyde objects are forged, the +forger knew a good deal of archaeology—knew that perforated +inscribed plaques of soft mineral occurred in many +countries—but he did not slavishly imitate the +patterns.</p> +<p>By a pleasant coincidence, at the moment of writing, comes to +me the <i>Annual Archaeological Report</i>, 1904, of the Canadian +Bureau of Education, kindly sent by Mr. David Boyle. He +remarks, as to stone pendants found in Canadian soil, “The +forms of what we call pendants varied greatly, and were probably +made to adapt themselves to <i>the natural shapes of water-worn +stones</i>. . . .” This is exactly what Dr. Munro +says <!-- page 106--><a name="page106"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 106</span>about the small stone objects from +the three Clyde stations. “The pendants, amulets, and +idols <i>appear to have been water-worn pieces of shale or +slate</i>, before they were perforated, decorated, and +polished” (Munro, p. 254). The forger may have been +guided by the ancient Canadian pendants; that man knows +everything!</p> +<p>Mr. Boyle goes on, speaking of the superstitious still +surviving instinct of treasuring such stones, “For some +unknown reason, many of us exhibit a desire to pick up pebbles so +marked, and examples of the kind are often carried as pocket +pieces,” obviously “for luck.” He gives +one case of such a stone being worn for fifty years as a +“watch pendant.” Perforated stones have always +had a “fetishness” attached to them, adds Mr. +Boyle. He then publishes several figures of such +stones. Two of these, with archaic markings like many in +Portugal, and one with an undisputed analogue from a Scottish +site, are reproduced (figs. 12, 13).</p> +<p>It is vain to tell us that the uses of such fetishistic stones +are out of harmony with any civilisation. The civilisation +of the dwellers in the Clyde sites was not so highly advanced as +to reject a superstition which still survives. Nor is there +any reason why these people should not have scratched archaic +markings on the pebbles <!-- page 107--><a +name="page107"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 107</span>as they +certainly cut them on stones in a Scottish crannog of the Iron +age.</p> +<p>Dr. Munro agrees with me that rude scribings on shale or slate +are found, of a post-Christian date, at St. Blane’s, in +Bute. <a name="citation107"></a><a href="#footnote107" +class="citation">[107]</a> The art, if art it can be +called, is totally different, of course, from the archaic types +of decoration, but all the things have <i>this</i> in common, +that they are rudely incised on shale or slate.</p> +<h2><!-- page 108--><a name="page108"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 108</span>XXVIII—QUESTION AS TO THE +OBJECTS AS ORNAMENTS OF THE PERSON</h2> +<p>Dr. Munro now objects that among the objects reckoned by me as +analogous to churinga is a perforated stone with an incised line, +and smaller slanting side lines, said to have been found at +Dumbuck; “9 inches long, 3½ inches broad, and +½ an inch thick.” <a name="citation108"></a><a +href="#footnote108" class="citation">[108]</a> I wish that +he gave us the weight. He says, “that no human being +would wear this as an ornament.”</p> +<p>No human being wears any churinga “as an +ornament!” Nobody says that they do.</p> +<p>Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, moreover, speak of “a long +stone churinga,” and of “especially large ones” +made by the mythical first ancestors of the race. Churinga, +over a foot in length, they tell us, are not usually perforated; +many churinga are not perforated, many are: <i>but the Arunta do +not </i><!-- page 109--><a name="page109"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 109</span><i>know why some are +perforated</i>. There is a legend that, of old, men hung up +the perforated churinga on the sacred <i>Nurtunja</i> pole: and +so they still have <i>perforated</i> stone churinga, not usually +more than a foot in length. <a name="citation109"></a><a +href="#footnote109" class="citation">[109]</a></p> +<p>If Dr. Munro has studied Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, he cannot +but know that churinga are not ornaments, are not all oval, but +of many shapes and sizes, and that churinga larger than the 9 +inch perforated stone from Dumbuck are perforated, and attached +to strings. I cannot tell the reason why, any better than +the Arunta can; and, of course, I cannot know why the 9 inch +stone from Dumbuck (if genuine) was perforated. But what I +must admire is the amazing luck or learning of Dr. Munro’s +supposed impostor. Not being “a semi-detached +idiot” he must have known that no mortal would sling about +his person, as an ornament, a chunk of stone 9 inches long, +3½ broad, and ½ an inch thick. Dr. Munro +himself insists on the absurdity of supposing that “any +human being” would do such a thing. Yet the forger +drilled a neat hole, as if for a string for suspension, at the +apex of the chunk. If he knew, before any other human being +in England, that the Arunta do this very thing to <!-- page +110--><a name="page110"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +110</span>some stone churinga, though seldom to churinga over a +foot in length,—and if he imitated the Arunta custom, the +impostor was a very learned impostor. If he did <i>not</i> +know, he was a very lucky rogue, for the Arunta coincide in doing +the same thing to great stone churinga: without being aware of +any motive for the performance as they never suspend churinga to +anything, though they say that their mythical ancestors did.</p> +<p>The impostor was also well aware of the many perforated stones +that exist in Scotland, not referred to by Dr. Munro. He +perforated some which could not be worn as ornaments, just as the +Arunta do. We shall find that the forger, either by dint of +wide erudition, or by a startling set of chance coincidences, +keeps on producing objects which are analogous to genuine relics +found in many sites of early life.</p> +<p>This is what makes the forger so interesting.</p> +<p>My theory of the forger is at the opposite pole from the +theory of Dr. Munro. He says that, “in applying these +local designs” (the worldwide archaic patterns,) to +unworked splinters of sandstone and pieces of water-worn shale +and slate, “the manufacturers had evidently not sufficient +archaeological knowledge to realise the significance of the fact +that they were doing what prehistoric <!-- page 111--><a +name="page111"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 111</span>man, in +this country, is never known to have done before.” <a +name="citation111"></a><a href="#footnote111" +class="citation">[111]</a></p> +<p>But, (dismissing the Kintyre and Tappock stones,) the +“manufacturers” did know, apparently, that perforated +and inscribed, or uninscribed tablets and plaques of shale and +schist and slate and gas coal were found in America, France, +Russia, and Portugal, and imitated these things or coincided in +the process by sheer luck. The “manufacturers” +were, perhaps, better informed than many of their critics. +But, if the things are genuine, more may be found by research in +the locality.</p> +<h2><!-- page 112--><a name="page112"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 112</span>XXIX—WEAPONS</h2> +<p>Dr. Munro is less than kind to the forger in the matter of the +“weapons” found at Dunbuie and Dumbuck. They +are “absolutely worthless as real weapons,” he says, +with perfect truth, for they are made of slate or shale, +<i>not</i> of hard stony slate, which many races used to employ +for lack of better material. <a name="citation112a"></a><a +href="#footnote112a" class="citation">[112a]</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p113a.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 16" src="images/p113a.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>The forger was obviously not thinking of dumping down +<i>serviceable</i> sham weapons. He could easily have +bought as many genuine flint celts and arrow-heads and knives as +he needed, had his aim been to prove his sites to be +neolithic. So I argued long ago, in a newspaper +letter. Dr. Munro replies among other things, that +“nothing could be easier than to detect modern imitations +of Neolithic relics.” <a name="citation112b"></a><a +href="#footnote112b" class="citation">[112b]</a> I said not +a word about <!-- page 113--><a name="page113"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 113</span>“modern +imitations.” I said that a forger, anxious to fake a +Neolithic site, “would, of course, drop in a few Neolithic +arrow-heads, ‘celts’ and so forth,” meaning +genuine objects, very easily to be procured for money.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p113bb.jpg"> +<img alt="Figs. 17, 18" src="images/p113bs.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>As the forger did not adopt a device so easy, so obvious, and +so difficult of detection, (if he purchased Scottish flint +implements) his aim was not to fake a Neolithic site. He +put in, not well-known genuine Neolithic things, but things of a +character with which some of his critics were not familiar, yet +which have analogues elsewhere.</p> +<p>Why did he do that?</p> +<p>As to the blunt decorated slate weapons, the forger did not +mean, I think, to pass off these as practicable arms of the +Neolithic period. These he could easily have bought from +the dealers. What he intended to dump down were not +practical weapons, but, in one case at least, <i>armes +d’apparat</i>, as French archaeologists call them, weapons +of show or ceremony.</p> +<p>The strange “vandyked” crozier-like stone objects +of schist or shale from Portugal were possibly <i>armes +d’apparat</i>, or heads of staves of dignity. There +is a sample in the American room at the British Museum, +uninscribed. I submit that the three very curious and +artistic stone axe-heads, <!-- page 114--><a +name="page114"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 114</span>figured by +M. Cartailhac, <a name="citation114"></a><a href="#footnote114" +class="citation">[114]</a> representing, one an uncouth animal; +another, a hooded human head, the third an extremely pretty girl, +could never have been used for practical purposes, but were +<i>armes d’apparat</i>. Perhaps such stone <i>armes +d’apparat</i>, or magical or sacred arms, were not unknown, +as survivals, in Scotland in the Iron Age. A +“celt” or stone axe-head of this kind, ornamented +with a pattern of inter-crossing lines, is figured and described +by the Rev. Mr. Mackenzie (Kenmore) in the <i>Proceedings</i> of +the Scottish Society of Antiquaries (1900-1901, p. 310 <i>et +seq.</i>). This axe-head, found near a cairn at +Balnahannait, is of five inches long by two and a quarter +broad. It is of “soft micaceous stone.” +The owners must have been acquainted with the use of the metals, +Mr. Mackenzie thinks, for the stone exhibits “interlaced +work of a late variety of this ornamentation.” Mr. +Mackenzie suggests that the ornament was perhaps added +“after the axe had obtained some kind of venerated or +symbolical character.” This implies that a +metal-working people, finding a stone axe, were puzzled by it, +venerated it, and decorated it in their late style of +ornament.</p> +<p>In that case, who, in earlier times, made an <!-- page +115--><a name="page115"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +115</span>useless axe-head of soft micaceous stone, and +why? It could be of no practical service. On the +other hand, people who had the metals might fashion a soft stone +into an <i>arme d’apparat</i>. “It cannot have +been intended for ordinary use,” “the axe may have +been a sacred or ceremonial one,” says Mr. Mackenzie, and +he makes the same conjecture as to another Scottish stone +axe-head. <a name="citation115"></a><a href="#footnote115" +class="citation">[115]</a></p> +<p>Here, then, if Mr. Mackenzie be right, we have a soft stone +axe-head, decorated with “later ornament,” the +property of a people who knew the metals, and regarded the object +as “a sacred or ceremonial one,” <i>enfin</i>, as an +<i>arme d’apparat</i>.</p> +<p>Dr. Munro doubtless knows all that is known about <i>armes +d’apparat</i>, but he unkindly forgets to credit the forger +with the same amount of easily accessible information, when the +forger dumps down a decorated slate spear-head, eleven inches +long.</p> +<p>Believe me, this forger was no fool: he knew what he was +about, and he must have laughed when critics said that his slate +spear-heads would be useless. He expected the learned to +guess what he was forging; not practicable weapons, but <i>armes +d’apparat</i>; survivals of a ceremonial kind, like Mr. +Mackenzie’s decorated axe-head of soft stone.</p> +<p><!-- page 116--><a name="page116"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +116</span><i>That</i>, I think, was our forger’s little +game; for even if he thought no more than Dr. Munro seems to do +of the theory of “survivals,” he knew that the theory +is fashionable. “Nothing like these spear-heads . . . +has hitherto been found in Scotland, so that they cannot be +survivals from a previous state of things in our country,” +says Dr. Munro. <a name="citation116a"></a><a +href="#footnote116a" class="citation">[116a]</a> The +argument implies that there is nothing in the soil of our country +of a nature still undiscovered. This is a large assumption, +especially if Mr. Mackenzie be right about the sacred ceremonial +decorated axe-head of soft stone. The forger, however, knew +that elsewhere, if not in Scotland, there exist useless <i>armes +d’apparat</i>, and he obviously meant to fake a few +samples. He was misunderstood. I knew what he was +doing, for it seems that “Mr. Lang . . . suggested that the +spear-heads were not meant to be used as weapons, but as +‘sacred things.’” <a name="citation116b"></a><a +href="#footnote116b" class="citation">[116b]</a> I knew +little; but I did know the sacred boomerang-shaped decorated +Arunta churinga, and later looked up other <i>armes +d’apparat</i>. <a name="citation116c"></a><a +href="#footnote116c" class="citation">[116c]</a></p> +<p>Apparently I must have “coached” the forger, and +told him what kinds of things to fake. But I protest +solemnly that I am innocent! He got up the subject for +himself, and knew more than many <!-- page 117--><a +name="page117"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 117</span>of his +critics. I had no more to do with the forger than M. +Salomon Reinach had to do with faking the golden “tiara of +Saitaphernes,” bought by the Louvre for £8000. +M. Reinack denies the suave suggestion that <i>he</i> was at the +bottom of this imposture. <a name="citation117a"></a><a +href="#footnote117a" class="citation">[117a]</a> I also am +innocent of instructing the Clyde forger. He read books, +English, French, German, American, Italian, Portuguese, and +Spanish.</p> +<p>From the <i>Bulletino di Palaetnologia Italiana</i>, vol. xi. +p. 33, 1885, plate iv., and from Professor Pigorini’s +article there, he prigged the idea of a huge stone weapon, of no +use, found in a grotto near Verona. <a name="citation117b"></a><a +href="#footnote117b" class="citation">[117b]</a> This +object is of flint, shaped like a flint arrow-head; is ten inches +and a half in length, and “weighs over 3½ +pounds.” “Pigorini conjectured that it had some +religious signification.”</p> +<p>Inspired by this arrow-head of Gargantua, the Clyde forger +came in with a still longer decorated slate spear-head, weighing +I know not how much. It is here photographed (figs. 17, +18). Compare the decoration of three parallel horizontal +lines with that on the broken Portuguese perforated stone (figs. +9, 10). Or did the Veronese forger come to Clyde, and carry +on the business at Dumbuck? <!-- page 118--><a +name="page118"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 118</span>The man has +read widely. Sometimes, however, he may have resorted to +sources which, though excellent, are accessible and cheap, like +Mr. Haddon’s <i>Evolution in Art</i>. Here (pp. 79, +80) the faker could learn all that he needed to know about +<i>armes d’apparat</i> in the form of stone axe-heads, +“unwieldy and probably quite useless objects” found +by Mr. Haddon in the chain of isles south-east of New +Guinea. Mr. Romilly and Dr. Wyatt Gill attest the existence +of similar axes of ceremony. “They are not intended +for cleaving timber.” We see “the metamorphosis +of a practical object into an unpractical one.” <a +name="citation118"></a><a href="#footnote118" +class="citation">[118]</a></p> +<p>The forger thus had sources for his great decorated slate +spear-head; the smaller specimens may be sketches for that +colossal work.</p> +<h2><!-- page 119--><a name="page119"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 119</span>XXX—THE FIGURINES</h2> +<p>Dr. Munro writes of “the carved figurines, +‘idols,’ or ‘totems,’ six in +number,” four from Dumbuck, one from Langbank. <a +name="citation119a"></a><a href="#footnote119a" +class="citation">[119a]</a> Now, first, nobody knows the +purpose of the rude figurines found in many sites from Japan to +Troy, from Russia to the Lake Dwellings of Europe, and in West +Africa, where the negroes use these figurines, when found, as +“fetish,” knowing nothing of their origin +(<i>Man</i>, No. 7, July, 1905). Like a figurine of a +woman, found in the Dumbuck kitchen midden, they are discovered +in old Japanese kitchen middens. <a name="citation119b"></a><a +href="#footnote119b" class="citation">[119b]</a></p> +<p>The astute forger, knowing that figurines were found in +Japanese kitchen middens, knowing it before Y. Koganei published +the fact in 1903, <!-- page 120--><a name="page120"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 120</span>thought the Dumbuck kitchen midden +an appropriate place for a figurine. Dr. Munro, possibly +less well-informed, regards the bottom of a kitchen midden at +Dumbuck as “a strange resting place for a goddess.” +<a name="citation120a"></a><a href="#footnote120a" +class="citation">[120a]</a> Now, as to +“goddess” nobody knows anything. Dr. Schliemann +thought that the many figurines of clay, in Troy, were meant for +Hera and Athene. Nobody knows, but every one not wholly +ignorant sees the absurdity of speaking of figurines as +“totems”; of course the term is not Dr. +Munro’s.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p120a.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 19" src="images/p120a.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>We know not their original meaning, but they occur “all +over the place”; in amber on the Baltic coast, with +grotesque faces carved in amber. In Russia and Finland, and +in sites of prehistoric Egypt, on slate, and in other materials +such grotesques are common. <a name="citation120b"></a><a +href="#footnote120b" class="citation">[120b]</a> Egypt is a +great centre of the Early Slate School of Art, the things ranging +from slate plaques covered with disorderly scratchings +“without a conscience or an aim,” to highly decorated +<i>palettes</i>. There is even a perforated object like the +slate crooks of M. Cartailhac, from Portugal, but rather more +like the silhouette of a <!-- page 121--><a +name="page121"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 121</span>bird, <a +name="citation121a"></a><a href="#footnote121a" +class="citation">[121a]</a> and there are decorative mace-heads +in soft stone. <a name="citation121b"></a><a href="#footnote121b" +class="citation">[121b]</a> Some of the prehistoric +figurines of human beings from Egypt are studded with +“cups,” <i>cupules</i>, <i>écuelles</i>, or +whatever we may be permitted to name them. In short, early +and rude races turn out much the same set of crude works of art +almost everywhere, and the extraordinary thing is, not that a few +are found in a corner of Britain, but that scarce any have been +found.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p120bb.jpg"> +<img alt="Figs. 20, 21" src="images/p120bs.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>As to the Russo-Finnish flint figurines, Mr. Abercromby thinks +that these objects may “have served as household gods or +personal amulets,” and Dr. Munro regards Mr. +Abercromby’s as “the most rational explanation of +their meaning and purpose.” He speaks of figurines of +clay (the most usual material) in Carniola, Bosnia, and +Transylvania. “Idols and amulets were indeed +universally used in prehistoric times.” <a +name="citation121c"></a><a href="#footnote121c" +class="citation">[121c]</a> “Objects which come under +the same category” occur “in various parts of +America.” Mr. Bruce <a name="citation121d"></a><a +href="#footnote121d" class="citation">[121d]</a> refers to M. +Reinach’s vast collection of designs of such figurines in +<i>L’Anthropologie</i>, vol. v., 1894. Thus rude +figurines in sites of many stages are very familiar +objects. The forger knew it, and <!-- page 122--><a +name="page122"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 122</span>dumped down +a few at Dumbuck. His female figurine (photographed in fig. +19), seems to me a very “plausible” figurine in +itself. It does not appear to me “unlike anything in +any collection in the British Isles, or elsewhere”—I +mean <i>elsewhere</i>. Dr. Munro admits that it discloses +“the hand of one not altogether ignorant of art.” <a +name="citation122"></a><a href="#footnote122" +class="citation">[122]</a> I add that it discloses the hand +of one not at all ignorant of genuine prehistoric figurines +representing women.</p> +<p>But I know nothing analogous from <i>British</i> sites. +Either such things do not exist (of which we cannot be certain), +or they have escaped discovery and record. Elsewhere they +are, confessedly, well known to science, and therefore to the +learned forger who, nobody can guess why, dumped them down with +the other fraudulent results of his researches.</p> +<p>If the figurines be genuine, I suppose that the Clyde folk +made them for the same reasons as the other peoples who did so, +whatever those reasons may have been: or, like the West Africans, +found them, relics of a forgotten age, and treasured them. +If their reasons were religious or superstitious, how am I to +know what were the theological tenets of the Clyde <!-- page +123--><a name="page123"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +123</span>residents? They may have been more or less got at +by Christianity, in Saint Ninian’s time, but the influence +might well be slight. On the other hand, neither men nor +angels can explain why the forger faked his figurines, for which +he certainly had a model—at least as regards the female +figure—in a widely distributed archaic feminine type of +“dolly.” The forger knew a good deal!</p> +<p>Dr. Munro writes: “That the disputed objects are amusing +playthings—the sportive productions of idle wags who +inhabited the various sites—seems to be the most recent +opinion which finds acceptance among local antiquaries. But +this view involves the contemporaneity of occupancy of the +respective sites, of which there is no evidence. . . .” <a +name="citation123a"></a><a href="#footnote123a" +class="citation">[123a]</a></p> +<p>There is no evidence for “contemporaneity of +occupancy” if Dunbuie be of 300-900 <span +class="smcap">a.d.</span>, and Dumbuck and Langbank of 1556-1758. +<a name="citation123b"></a><a href="#footnote123b" +class="citation">[123b]</a> But we, and apparently Dr. +Munro (p. 264) have rejected the “Corporation cairn” +theory, the theory of the cairn erected in 1556, or 1612, and +lasting till 1758. The genuine undisputed relics, according +to Dr. Munro, are such as “are commonly found on crannogs, +<!-- page 124--><a name="page124"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +124</span>brochs, and other early inhabited sites of +Scotland.” <a name="citation124a"></a><a +href="#footnote124a" class="citation">[124a]</a> The sites +are all, and the genuine relics in the sites are all “of +some time between the fifth and twelfth centuries.” <a +name="citation124b"></a><a href="#footnote124b" +class="citation">[124b]</a> The sites are all close to each +other, the remains are all of the same period, (unless the late +Celtic comb chance to be earlier,) yet Dr. Munro says that +“for contemporaneity of occupancy there is no +evidence.” <a name="citation124c"></a><a +href="#footnote124c" class="citation">[124c]</a> He none +the less repeats the assertion that they are of “precisely +the same chronological horizon.” “The +chronological horizon” (of Langbank and Dumbuck) +“<i>seems to me to be precisely the same</i>, <i>viz.</i> a +date well on in the early Iron Age, posterior to the Roman +occupation of that part of Britain” (p. 147).</p> +<p>Thus Dr. Munro assigns to both sites “precisely the same +chronological horizon,” and also says that “there is +no evidence” for the “contemporaneity of +occupancy.” This is not, as it may appear, an example +of lack of logical consistency. “The range of the +occupancy” (of the sites) “is uncertain, probably it +was different in each case,” writes Dr. Munro. <a +name="citation124d"></a><a href="#footnote124d" +class="citation">[124d]</a> No reason is given for this +opinion, and as all the undisputed remains are confessedly of one +stage of culture, the “wags” at all three sites were +<!-- page 125--><a name="page125"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +125</span>probably in the same stage of rudimentary humour and +skill. If they made the things, the things are not modern +forgeries. But the absence of the disputed objects from +other sites of the same period remains as great a difficulty as +ever. Early “wags” may have made them—but +why are they only known in the three Clyde sites? Also, why +are the painted pebbles only known in a few brochs of +Caithness?</p> +<p>Have the <i>graffiti</i> on slate at St. Blane’s, in +Bute, been found—I mean have <i>graffiti</i> on slate like +those of St. Blane’s, been found elsewhere in Scotland? <a +name="citation125"></a><a href="#footnote125" +class="citation">[125]</a> The kinds of art, writing, and +Celtic ornament, at St. Blane’s, are all familiar, but not +their presence on scraps of slate. Some of the +“art” of the Dumbuck things is also familiar, but +not, in Scotland, on pieces of slate and shale. Whether +they were done by early wags, or by a modern and rather erudite +forger, I know not, of course; I only think that the question is +open; is not settled by Dr. Munro.</p> +<h2><!-- page 126--><a name="page126"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 126</span>XXXI—GROTESQUE HEADS. +DISPUTED PORTUGUESE PARALLELS</h2> +<p>Figurines are common enough things in ancient sites; by no +means so common are the grotesque heads found at Dumbuck and +Langbank. They have recently been found in Portugal. +Did the forger know that? Did he forge them on Portuguese +models? Or was it chance coincidence? Or was it +undesigned parallelism? There is such a case according to +Mortillet. M. de Mortillet flew upon poor Prof. +Pigorini’s odd things, denouncing them as forgeries; he had +attacked Dr. Schliemann’s finds in his violent way, and +never apologised, to my knowledge.</p> +<p>Then a lively squabble began. Italian +“archaeologists of the highest standing” backed Prof. +Pigorini: Mortillet had not seen the Italian things, but he stood +to his guns. Things found near Cracow were taken as +corroborating the Breonio finds, also things from +Volósova, in <!-- page 127--><a name="page127"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 127</span>Russia. Mortillet replied by +asking “why under similar conditions could not +forgers” (very remote in space,) “equally fabricate +objects of the same form.” <a name="citation127"></a><a +href="#footnote127" class="citation">[127]</a> Is it +likely?</p> +<p>Why should they forge similar unheard-of things in Russia, +Poland, and Italy? Did the same man wander about forging, +or was telepathy at work, or do forging wits jump? The +Breonio controversy is undecided; “practised persons” +can <i>not</i> “read the antiquities as easily as +print,” to quote Mr. Read. They often read them in +different ways, here as fakes, there as authentic.</p> +<p>M. Boulle, reviewing Dr. Munro in <i>L’Anthropologie</i> +(August, 1905), says that M. Cartailhac recognises the +genuineness of some of the strange objects from Breonio.</p> +<p>But, as to our Dumbuck things, the Clyde forger went to +Portugal and forged there; or the Clyde forger came from +Portugal; or forging wits coincided fairly well, in Portugal and +in Scotland, as earlier, at Volósova and Breonio.</p> +<p>In <i>Portugalia</i>, a Portuguese archaeological magazine, +edited by Don Ricardo Severe, appeared an article by the Rev. +Father José Brenha on the dolmens of Pouco +d’Aguiar. Father Raphael Rodrigues, of that place, +asked <!-- page 128--><a name="page128"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 128</span>Father Brenha to excavate with him +in the Christmas holidays of 1894. They published some of +their discoveries in magazines, and some of the finds were +welcomed by Dr. Leite de Vasconcellos, in his <i>Religiões +da Lusitania</i> (vol. i. p. 341). They dug in the remote +and not very cultured Transmontane province, and, in one dolmen +found objects “the most extraordinary possible,” says +Father Brenha. <a name="citation128"></a><a href="#footnote128" +class="citation">[128]</a> There were perforated plaques +with alphabetic inscriptions; stones engraved with beasts of +certain or of dubious species, very fearfully and wonderfully +drawn; there were stone figurines of females, as at Dumbuck; +there were stones with cups and lines connecting the cups, +(common in many places) and, as at Dumbuck, there were grotesque +heads in stone. (See a few examples, figs. 20-24).</p> +<p>Figures 20, 21, 24 are cupped, or cup and duct stones; 22 is a +female figurine; 23 is a heart-shaped charm stone.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p128b.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 22" src="images/p128s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>On all this weighty mass of stone objects, Dr. Munro writes +thus:</p> +<blockquote><p>“Since the MS. of this volume was placed in +the hands of the publishers a new side-issue regarding some +strange objects, said to have been found in Portuguese dolmens, +has been imported into the Clyde controversy, in which Mr. Astley +<!-- page 129--><a name="page129"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +129</span>has taken a prominent part. In a communication to +the <i>Antiquary</i>, April, 1904, he writes: ‘I will +merely say here, on this point, that my arguments are brought to +a scientific conclusion in my paper, ‘Portuguese Parallels +to Clydeside Discoveries,’ reported in your issue for +March, which will shortly be published.</p> +<p>“I have seen the article in <i>Portugalia</i> and the +published ‘scientific conclusion’ of Mr. Astley +(<i>Journal of B.A.A.</i>, April and August, 1904), and can only +say that, even had I space to discuss the matter I would not do +so for two reasons. First, because I see no parallelism +whatever between the contrasted objects from the Portuguese +dolmens and the Clyde ancient sites, beyond the fact that they +are both ‘queer things.’ And, secondly, because +some of the most eminent European scholars regard the objects +described and illustrated in <i>Portugalia</i> as +forgeries. The learned Director of the Musée de St. +Germain, M. Saloman Reinach, thus writes about them: +‘Jusqu’à nouvel ordre, +c’est-à-dire jusqu’à preuve formelle du +contraire je considère ces pierres sculptées et +gravées comme le produit d’une mystification. +J’aimerais connaitre, à ce sujet, l’opinion +des autres savants du Portugal’ (<i>Revue +Archéologique</i>, 4th S., vol. ii., 1903, p. +431).”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>I had brought the Portuguese things to the notice of English +readers long before Mr. Astley did so, but that is not to the +purpose.</p> +<p>The point is that Dr. Munro denies the parallelism between the +Clyde and Portuguese objects. Yet I must hold that stone +figurines of women, grotesque heads in stone, cupped stones, +stones with cup and duct, stones with rays proceeding from a +central point, and perforated stones with <!-- page 130--><a +name="page130"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 130</span>linear +ornamentation, are rather “parallel,” in Portugal and +in Clydesdale.</p> +<p>So far the Scottish and the Portuguese fakers have hit on +parallel lines of fraud. Meanwhile I know of no +archaeologists except Portuguese archaeologists, who have seen +the objects from the dolmen, and of no Portuguese archaeologist +who disputes their authenticity. So there the matter rests. +<a name="citation130"></a><a href="#footnote130" +class="citation">[130]</a> The parallelism appears to me to +be noticeable. I do not say that the styles of art are +akin, but that the artists, by a common impulse, have produced +cupped stones, perforated and inscribed stones, figurines in +stone, and grotesque heads in stone.</p> +<p>Is not this common impulse rather curious? And is +suspicion of forgery to fall, in Portugal, on respectable +priests, or on the very uncultured wags of Traz os Montes? +Mortillet, educated by priests, hated and suspected all of +them. M. Cartailhac suspected “clericals,” as +to the Spanish cave paintings, but acknowledged his error. +I can guess no motive for the ponderous bulk of Portuguese +forgeries, and am a little suspicious of the tendency to shout +“Forgery” in the face of everything unfamiliar.</p> +<p>But the Portuguese things are suspected by <!-- page 131--><a +name="page131"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 131</span>M. +Cartailhac, (who, however, again admits that he has been +credulously incredulous before,) as well as by M. Reinach. +The things ought to be inspected in themselves. I still +think that they are on parallel lines with the work of the Clyde +forger, who may have read about them in <i>A Vida Moderna</i> +1895, 1896, in <i>Archeologo Portugues</i>, in <i>Encyclopedia +dar Familiar</i>, in various numbers, and in <i>Religiões +da Lusitania</i>, vol. i. pp. 341, 342, (1897), a work by the +learned Director of the Ethnological Museum of Portugal. To +these sources the Dumbuck forger may have gone for +inspiration.</p> +<p>Stated without this elegant irony, my opinion is that the +parallelism of the figurines and grotesque stone faces of Villa +d’Aguiar and of Clyde rather tends to suggest the +genuineness of both sets of objects. But this opinion, like +my opinion about the Australian and other parallelisms, is no +argument against Dr. Munro, for he acknowledges none of these +parallelisms. That point,—a crucial point,—are +the various sets of things analogous in character or not? must be +decided for each reader by himself, according to his knowledge, +taste, fancy, and bias.</p> +<h2><!-- page 132--><a name="page132"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 132</span>XXXII—DISPUTED OBJECTS FROM +DUNBUIE</h2> +<p>The faker occasionally changes his style. We have seen +what slovenly designs in the archaic cup and ring and incomplete +circle style he dumped down at Dumbuck. I quote Dr. Munro +on his doings at Dunbuie, where the faker occasionally drops a +pear-shaped slate perforated stone, with a design in +cupules. Dr. Munro writes:</p> +<blockquote><p>“The most meaningless group—if a +degree of comparison be admissible in regard to a part when the +whole is absolutely incomprehensible on archaeological +principles—consists of a series of unprepared and +irregularly shaped pieces of laminated sandstone (plate xvi.) +similar to some of the stones of which the fort of Dunbuie was +built, <a name="citation132"></a><a href="#footnote132" +class="citation">[132]</a> having one of their surfaces decorated +with small cup-marks, sometimes symmetrically arranged so far as +to indicate parts of geometrical figures, and at other times +variously combined with lines and circles. Two fragments of +bones, also from Dunbuie, are similarly adorned (plate xvi. nos. +13, 14). Eleven of the twelve sandstone <!-- page 133--><a +name="page133"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 133</span>fragments +which make up the group were fractured in such a manner as to +suggest that the line of fracture had intersected the original +ornamentation, and had thus detached a portion of it. If +this be so, there must have been originally at least two or three +other portions which, if found, would fit along the margin of +each of the extant portions, just as the fragments of a broken +urn come together. Yet among these decorated stones not one +single bit fits another, nor is any of the designs the +counterpart of another. If we suppose that these decorated +stones are portions of larger tablets on which the designs were +completed, then either they were broken before being introduced +into the debris of the fort, or the designs were intentionally +executed in an incomplete state, just as they are now to be seen +on the existing natural splinters of stone. The supposition +that the occupiers of the fort possessed the original tablets, +and that they had been smashed on the premises, is excluded by +the significant fact that only one fragment of each tablet has +been discovered. For, in the breaking up of such tablets, +it would be inconceivable, according to the law of chances, that +one portion, and only one, of each different specimen would +remain while all the others had disappeared. On the other +hand, the hypothesis that the occupiers of the fort carved these +designs on the rough and unprepared splinters of stone in the +precise manner they now come before us, seems to me to involve +premeditated deception, for it is difficult to believe that such +uncompleted designs could have any other finality of purpose.</p> +<p>Looking at these geometrical figures from the point of +technique, they do not make a favourable impression in support of +their genuineness. The so-called cup-marks consist of +punctures of two or three different sizes, so many corresponding +to one size and so many to another. The stiffness of the +lines and circles reminds one more of ruler and compass than of +the freehand work of prehistoric artists. <!-- page +134--><a name="page134"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +134</span>The patterns are unprecedented for their strange +combinations of art elements. For example, no. 9, plate +xvi., looks as if it were a design for some modern +machinery. The main ornament on another fragment of +sandstone (no. 12), consisting of a cross and circle composed of +a series of cup-marls, seems to be a completed design; but yet at +the corner there are lines which are absolutely meaningless, +unless we suppose that they formed part of a more enlarged +tablet. Similar remarks apply to nos. 3 and 8.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Is it really contrary to “the law of chances” +that, in some 1200 years of unknown fortunes, no two fragments of +the same plates of red sandstone (some dozen in number) should be +found at Dunbuie? Think of all that may have occurred +towards the scattering of fragments of unregarded sandstone +before the rise of soil hid them all from sight. Where is +the smaller portion of the shattered cup and ring marked +sandstone block found in the Lochlee crannog? On the other +hand, in the same crannog, a hammerstone broken in two was found, +each half in a different place, as were two parts of a figurine +at Dumbuck. Where are the arms of the Venus of Milo, vainly +sought beside and around the rest of the statue? Where are +the lost noses, arms, and legs of thousands of statues? +Nobody can guess where they are or how they vanished. Or +where are the lost fragments of countless objects in pottery +found in old sites?</p> +<p><!-- page 135--><a name="page135"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +135</span>It was as easy for the forger to work over a whole +plaque of sandstone, break it, and bury the pieces, as for him to +do what he has done.</p> +<p>These designs make an unfavourable impression because some, +not all of them, are stiff and regular. The others make an +unfavourable impression because they are so laxly executed. +For what conceivable purpose did the forger here resort to the +aid of compasses, and elsewhere do nothing of the kind? Why +should the artist, if an old resident of Dunbuie fort, not have +compasses, like the Cairn-wight of Lough Crew?</p> +<p>On inspecting the pieces, in the Museum, the regularity of +design seems to me to be much exaggerated in Dr. Munro’s +figures, by whom drawn we are not informed.</p> +<p>As to Dr. Munro’s figure 12, it seems to me to aim at a +Celtic cross and circle, while part of his figure 3 suggests a +crozier, and there is a cross on figure 18, as on a painted +pebble from a broch in Caithness. The rest I cannot profess +to explain; they look like idle work on sandstone, but may have +had a meaning to their fashioner. His meaning, and that of +the forger who here changes his style, are equally +inscrutable.</p> +<p>I return to a strange perforated pebble, an intaglio from +Dumbuck.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p136ab.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 23" src="images/p136as.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>Dr. Munro quotes, as to this pebble, the <!-- page 136--><a +name="page136"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +136</span><i>Journal</i> of the British Archaeological +Association: “In the September number of the <i>Journal</i> +(p. 282) we are informed that a slaty spear-head, an arrow-head +of bone, and a sinker stone were found in the débris +inside the canoe. ‘In the cavity of a large +bone,’ says the writer, ‘was also got an ornament of +a peculiar stone. The digger unearthed it from the deposit +at the bottom of the canoe, about 14 feet from the bow and near +to a circular hole cut in the bottom about 3½ inches in +diameter.’ What a funny place to hide a precious +ornament, for I take this peculiar stone to be that with the +human hand incised on one side and three men rowing in a boat on +the other! (see plate xv. no. 10).”</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p136b.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 24" src="images/p136b.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>Here the place of discovery in the canoe is given with +precision, and its place within the cavity of the bone is +pronounced by Dr. Munro to be “funny.” As to +the three men in a boat, the Rev. Geo. Wilson of Glenluce, on +Feb. 14, 1887, presented to the Scots Antiquaries a bugle-shaped +pendant of black shale or cannel-coal 2¼ inches long, with +a central groove for suspension. On one side of the pendant +was incised a sketch of two figures standing up in a boat or +canoe with a high prow. The pendant is undisputed, the +pebble is disputed, and we know nothing more about the matter +(see fig. 25).</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p136c.jpg"> +<img alt="Fig. 25" src="images/p136c.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<h2><!-- page 137--><a name="page137"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 137</span>XXXIII—DISPUTABLE AND +CERTAINLY FORGED OBJECTS</h2> +<p>In his judicious remarks to the Society of Antiquaries, +(<i>Proceedings</i>, xxxiv.,) Dr. Joseph Anderson observed that +opinions would probably vary as to certain among the disputed +objects. Among these are the inscribed oyster shells. +I see nothing <i>a priori</i> improbable in the circumstance that +men who incised certain patterns on schist or shale, should do so +on oyster shells. Palaeolithic man did his usual sporting +sketches on shells, and there was a vast and varied art of +designing on shells among the pre-Columbian natives of North +America. <a name="citation137"></a><a href="#footnote137" +class="citation">[137]</a> We here see the most primitive +scratches developing into full-blown Aztec art.</p> +<p>If the markings were only on such inscribed shells as +mouldered away—so Mr. Bruce tells us—when exposed to +light and air, (I do not <!-- page 138--><a +name="page138"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 138</span>know +whether the designs were copied before the shells crumbled,) +these conchological drawings would not trouble us. No +modern could make the designs on shells that were hurrying into +dust. We have Mr. Bruce’s word for these mouldering +shells, and we have the absolute certainty that such decomposing +shells could not be incised by a hand of to-day, as shale, slate, +schist, and sandstone can now be engraved upon, fraudulently.</p> +<p>But when, as Professor Boyd Dawkins writes, the finds include +“two fresh shells . . . unmistakable Blue Points,” +drilled with perforations, or inscribed, from Dunbuie, then there +are only two possible alternatives.</p> +<p>1. They were made by the faker, or</p> +<p>2. They were “interpolated” into the Dunbuie +site by somebody.</p> +<p>The forger himself is, I think, far too knowing a man to fake +inscriptions on fresh shells, even if, not being a conchologist, +he did not know that the oysters were American blue points.</p> +<p>I have written in vain if the reader, while believing in the +hypothesis of a forger, thinks him such an egregious ass. +For Blue Points as non-existent save in America, 1 rely on Prof. +Boyd Dawkins.</p> +<p>As the public were allowed to break off and steal the prow of +the Dumbuck canoe, it <!-- page 139--><a name="page139"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 139</span>is plain that no guard was placed on +the sites. They lay open for months to the interpolations +of wags, and I think, for my own part, that one of them is likely +to have introduced the famous blue points.</p> +<p>Dr. Munro tells us how a “large-worked stone,” a +grotesque head, was foisted through a horizontal hole, into the +relic bed of his kitchen midden at Elie. “It lay +under four inches of undisturbed black earth.” But it +had been “interpolated” there by some “lousy +tykes of Fife,” as the anti-covenanting song calls them. <a +name="citation139"></a><a href="#footnote139" +class="citation">[139]</a></p> +<p>It was rather easier to interpolate Blue Point oyster shells +at Dunbuie. On the other hand, two splinters of stone, +inserted into a bone and a tyne of deer’s horn, figured by +Dr. Munro among Dumbuck and Dunbuie finds, seem to me rather too +stupid fakes for the regular forger, and a trifle too clever for +the Sunday holiday-maker. These two things I do not +apologise for, or defend; my knowledge of primitive implements is +that of a literary man, but for what it is worth, it does not +incline me to regard these things as primitive implements.</p> +<h2><!-- page 140--><a name="page140"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 140</span>XXXIV—CONCLUSION</h2> +<p><span class="smcap"><i>Explicit</i></span>! I have tried +to show cause why we should not bluntly dismiss the mass of +disputed objects as forgeries, but should rest in a balance of +judgment, file the objects for reference, and await the results +of future excavations. If there be a faker, I hope he +appreciates my sympathetic estimate of his knowledge, assiduity, +and skill in <i>leger de main</i>.</p> +<p>I am the forger’s only friend, and I ask him to come +forward and make a clean breast of it, like the young men who +hoaxed the Society for Psychical Research with a faked wraith, or +phantasm of the living.</p> +<blockquote><p>“Let it fully now suffice,<br /> + The gambol has been shown!”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>It seems to me nearly equally improbable that a forger has +been at work on a large scale, and that sets of objects, +unexampled in our <!-- page 141--><a name="page141"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 141</span>isle, have really turned up in some +numbers. But then the Caithness painted pebbles were +equally without precedent, yet are undisputed. The +proverbial fence seems, in these circumstances, to be the +appropriate perch for Science, in fact a statue of the Muse of +Science might represent her as sitting, in contemplation, on the +fence. The strong, the very strong point against +authenticity is this: <i>numbers</i> of the disputed objects were +found in sites of the early <i>Iron Age</i>. Now such +objects, save for a few samples, are only known,—and that +in non-British lands,—in <i>Neolithic</i> sites. The +theory of survival may be thought not to cover the <i>number</i> +of the disputed objects.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">glasgow: +printed at the university press by robert maclehose and co. +ltd.</span></p> +<h2>Footnotes</h2> +<p><a name="footnote4"></a><a href="#citation4" +class="footnote">[4]</a> <i>Archaeology and False +Antiquities</i>, pp. 259-261. By Robert Munro, M.A., M.D., +LL.D., F.R.S.E., F.S.A.Scot. Methuen & Co., London, +1905.</p> +<p><a name="footnote5a"></a><a href="#citation5a" +class="footnote">[5a]</a> Munro, p. xii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote5b"></a><a href="#citation5b" +class="footnote">[5b]</a> Munro, pp. 56-80. Cf. +<i>L’Homme Prehistorique</i>, No. 7, pp. 214-218. +(1905.)</p> +<p><a name="footnote6"></a><a href="#citation6" +class="footnote">[6]</a> Methuen, London, 1904, pp. +292.</p> +<p><a name="footnote7"></a><a href="#citation7" +class="footnote">[7]</a> Munro, p. 178.</p> +<p><a name="footnote8a"></a><a href="#citation8a" +class="footnote">[8a]</a> Munro, p. 55; cf. his <i>Lake +Dwellings in Europe</i>, Fig. 13, Nos. 17, 18, 19. See +<i>Arch. and False Antiquities</i>, pp. 21, 22, where Dr. Munro +acknowledges that he had been taken in.</p> +<p><a name="footnote8b"></a><a href="#citation8b" +class="footnote">[8b]</a> Munro, pp. 41, 42.</p> +<p><a name="footnote8c"></a><a href="#citation8c" +class="footnote">[8c]</a> Munro, pp. 275-279.</p> +<p><a name="footnote9"></a><a href="#citation9" +class="footnote">[9]</a> <i>L’Anthropologie</i>, +1902, pp. 348-354.</p> +<p><a name="footnote10"></a><a href="#citation10" +class="footnote">[10]</a> Munro, pp. 175-176.</p> +<p><a name="footnote11a"></a><a href="#citation11a" +class="footnote">[11a]</a> Munro, p. 152.</p> +<p><a name="footnote11b"></a><a href="#citation11b" +class="footnote">[11b]</a> Munro, pp. 28, 29.</p> +<p><a name="footnote12"></a><a href="#citation12" +class="footnote">[12]</a> Munro, p. 130.</p> +<p><a name="footnote13a"></a><a href="#citation13a" +class="footnote">[13a]</a> Munro, p. 155. Letter of +January 7, 1899.</p> +<p><a name="footnote13b"></a><a href="#citation13b" +class="footnote">[13b]</a> Munro, p. 260.</p> +<p><a name="footnote14a"></a><a href="#citation14a" +class="footnote">[14a]</a> Munro, p. 270.</p> +<p><a name="footnote14b"></a><a href="#citation14b" +class="footnote">[14b]</a> Munro, p. 270.</p> +<p><a name="footnote15"></a><a href="#citation15" +class="footnote">[15]</a> Bruce, <i>Proceedings of the +Scots Society of Antiquaries</i>, vol. xxxiv. pp. 439, 448, +449.</p> +<p><a name="footnote17"></a><a href="#citation17" +class="footnote">[17]</a> <i>Archaeologia Scotica</i>, vol. +v. p. 146.</p> +<p><a name="footnote21"></a><a href="#citation21" +class="footnote">[21]</a> See pages 133, 166.</p> +<p><a name="footnote24"></a><a href="#citation24" +class="footnote">[24]</a> March 1899, “Cup and +Ring”; cf. the same article in my <i>Magic and +Religion</i>, 1901, pp. 241-256.</p> +<p><a name="footnote25a"></a><a href="#citation25a" +class="footnote">[25a]</a> Munro, 133, 134, 150-151.</p> +<p><a name="footnote25b"></a><a href="#citation25b" +class="footnote">[25b]</a> Munro, pp. 139, 140.</p> +<p><a name="footnote26"></a><a href="#citation26" +class="footnote">[26]</a> See <i>Proceedings of the +Philosophical Society of Glasgow</i>, xxx. 268, and fig. 4.</p> +<p><a name="footnote27"></a><a href="#citation27" +class="footnote">[27]</a> <i>Journal of the British +Archaeological Society</i>, December 1898.</p> +<p><a name="footnote28a"></a><a href="#citation28a" +class="footnote">[28a]</a> <i>Prehistoric Scotland</i>, p. +431.</p> +<p><a name="footnote28b"></a><a href="#citation28b" +class="footnote">[28b]</a> See <i>Proceedings of the +Philosophical Society of Glasgow</i>, xxx. fig. 4.</p> +<p><a name="footnote29"></a><a href="#citation29" +class="footnote">[29]</a> Vol. xxx. 270.</p> +<p><a name="footnote30"></a><a href="#citation30" +class="footnote">[30]</a> Vol. xxxiv. p. 438.</p> +<p><a name="footnote31"></a><a href="#citation31" +class="footnote">[31]</a> Mr. Alston describes this +causeway, and shows it on the plan as “leading from the +‘central well’ to the burn about 120 fee to west of +centre of crannog.”</p> +<p><a name="footnote34"></a><a href="#citation34" +class="footnote">[34]</a> <i>Proceedings Soc. Ant. +Scot.</i> 1899-1900, p. 439.</p> +<p><a name="footnote35"></a><a href="#citation35" +class="footnote">[35]</a> <i>Proc. Scot. Soc. Ant.</i> +1900-1901, p. 283.</p> +<p><a name="footnote36a"></a><a href="#citation36a" +class="footnote">[36a]</a> <i>Proceedings S.A.S.</i> vol. +xxxiv. pp. 460-461.</p> +<p><a name="footnote36b"></a><a href="#citation36b" +class="footnote">[36b]</a> Munro, p. 256.</p> +<p><a name="footnote37"></a><a href="#citation37" +class="footnote">[37]</a> Munro, p. 146. Mr. Bruce in +<i>Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Society</i>, vol. v. N.S. part 1. p. +45.</p> +<p><a name="footnote38a"></a><a href="#citation38a" +class="footnote">[38a]</a> <i>L’Anthropologie</i>, +xiv. pp. 416-426.</p> +<p><a name="footnote38b"></a><a href="#citation38b" +class="footnote">[38b]</a> Munro, p. 196.</p> +<p><a name="footnote38c"></a><a href="#citation38c" +class="footnote">[38c]</a> Munro, 147, 148.</p> +<p><a name="footnote39"></a><a href="#citation39" +class="footnote">[39]</a> Munro, p. 218.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40a"></a><a href="#citation40a" +class="footnote">[40a]</a> Munro, pp. 219-220.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40b"></a><a href="#citation40b" +class="footnote">[40b]</a> Munro, p. 219.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40c"></a><a href="#citation40c" +class="footnote">[40c]</a> <i>Transactions</i>, <i>ut +supra</i>, p. 51.</p> +<p><a name="footnote41"></a><a href="#citation41" +class="footnote">[41]</a> <i>Proc. Soc. Ant.</i> 1900-1901, +pp. 112-148.</p> +<p><a name="footnote43"></a><a href="#citation43" +class="footnote">[43]</a> Pp. 135, 177, 257-258, and +elsewhere.</p> +<p><a name="footnote44"></a><a href="#citation44" +class="footnote">[44]</a> Munro, pp. 177, 257, 258.</p> +<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45" +class="footnote">[45]</a> Munro, p. 139.</p> +<p><a name="footnote46a"></a><a href="#citation46a" +class="footnote">[46a]</a> Munro, p. 264.</p> +<p><a name="footnote46b"></a><a href="#citation46b" +class="footnote">[46b]</a> These phrases are from Munro, +<i>Arch. and False Antiquities</i>, pp. 138-139.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47a"></a><a href="#citation47a" +class="footnote">[47a]</a> Munro, p. 139.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47b"></a><a href="#citation47b" +class="footnote">[47b]</a> Munro, <i>Prehistoric +Scotland</i>, p. 420.</p> +<p><a name="footnote48"></a><a href="#citation48" +class="footnote">[48]</a> Munro, p. 130.</p> +<p><a name="footnote49a"></a><a href="#citation49a" +class="footnote">[49a]</a> See page 246 of Dr. +Munro’s article on Raised Beaches, <i>Proc. Roy. Soc. +Edinburgh</i>, vol. xxv. part 3. The reference is to two +Clyde canoes built of planks fastened to ribs, suggesting that +the builder had seen a foreign galley, and imitated it.</p> +<p><a name="footnote49b"></a><a href="#citation49b" +class="footnote">[49b]</a> Munro, pp. 138, 139.</p> +<p><a name="footnote51a"></a><a href="#citation51a" +class="footnote">[51a]</a> <i>Proceedings Scot. Soc. +Ant.</i> vol. xxxiv. p. 462.</p> +<p><a name="footnote51b"></a><a href="#citation51b" +class="footnote">[51b]</a> Munro, p. 147.</p> +<p><a name="footnote52a"></a><a href="#citation52a" +class="footnote">[52a]</a> <i>Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot.</i> +1900-1901, p. 296.</p> +<p><a name="footnote52b"></a><a href="#citation52b" +class="footnote">[52b]</a> Munro, p. 138.</p> +<p><a name="footnote52c"></a><a href="#citation52c" +class="footnote">[52c]</a> These structures, of course, +were of dry stone, without lime and mortar. By what name we +call them, “towers,” or “cairns,” is +indifferent to me.</p> +<p><a name="footnote54"></a><a href="#citation54" +class="footnote">[54]</a> Beda, book 1, chap. i.</p> +<p><a name="footnote61"></a><a href="#citation61" +class="footnote">[61]</a> <i>Proceedings Soc. Scot. +Ant.</i> 1899-1900, vol. xxxiv. pp. 456-458.</p> +<p><a name="footnote63"></a><a href="#citation63" +class="footnote">[63]</a> See Prof. Zimmer’s <i>Das +Mutterrecht der Pickten</i>, Rhys’s <i>Celtic Britain</i>, +<i>Rhind Lectures</i>, and in <i>Royal Commission’s Report +on Wales</i>, with my <i>History of Scotland</i>, vol. i. pp. 12, +14.</p> +<p><a name="footnote64a"></a><a href="#citation64a" +class="footnote">[64a]</a> <i>Bureau of Ethnology’s +Report</i>, 1896-97, p. 324. See also the essay on +“Indian Pictographs,” <i>Report of Bureau</i>, for +1888-89.</p> +<p><a name="footnote64b"></a><a href="#citation64b" +class="footnote">[64b]</a> MSS. of Mr. Mullen, of Bourke, +N.S.W., and of Mr. Charles Lang.</p> +<p><a name="footnote64c"></a><a href="#citation64c" +class="footnote">[64c]</a> Scott, London, 1895.</p> +<p><a name="footnote64d"></a><a href="#citation64d" +class="footnote">[64d]</a> <i>Op. cit.</i> p. 178.</p> +<p><a name="footnote64e"></a><a href="#citation64e" +class="footnote">[64e]</a> <i>Op. cit.</i> p. 172.</p> +<p><a name="footnote65"></a><a href="#citation65" +class="footnote">[65]</a> Munro, p. 246.</p> +<p><a name="footnote66"></a><a href="#citation66" +class="footnote">[66]</a> Longmans.</p> +<p><a name="footnote67"></a><a href="#citation67" +class="footnote">[67]</a> Munro, p. 177.</p> +<p><a name="footnote69"></a><a href="#citation69" +class="footnote">[69]</a> Cartailhac, <i>Ages +Préhistoriques</i>, p. 97.</p> +<p><a name="footnote73a"></a><a href="#citation73a" +class="footnote">[73a]</a> <i>L’Anthropologie</i>, +vol. xiv. p. 338.</p> +<p><a name="footnote73b"></a><a href="#citation73b" +class="footnote">[73b]</a> <i>Proc. S.A.S.</i>, +1878-1879.</p> +<p><a name="footnote73c"></a><a href="#citation73c" +class="footnote">[73c]</a> <i>Op. cit.</i> pp. 208, +210.</p> +<p><a name="footnote74"></a><a href="#citation74" +class="footnote">[74]</a> Bruce, <i>ut supra</i>, p. +446.</p> +<p><a name="footnote75"></a><a href="#citation75" +class="footnote">[75]</a> <i>Bureau of Ethnology</i>, +<i>Report of</i> 1888-1889, p. 193.</p> +<p><a name="footnote77"></a><a href="#citation77" +class="footnote">[77]</a> Munro, plate xv. p. 228, p. 249, +cf. fig. 63, p. 249.</p> +<p><a name="footnote78"></a><a href="#citation78" +class="footnote">[78]</a> Spencer and Gillen, <i>Native +Tribes of Central Australia</i>, figs. 20, 21, 22, 133; +<i>Northern Tribes of Central Australia</i>, figs. 89, 92, 80, +81.</p> +<p><a name="footnote80a"></a><a href="#citation80a" +class="footnote">[80a]</a> I have no concern with an +object, never seen by Dr. Munro, or by me, to my knowledge, but +described as a “churinga”; in <i>Journal of British +Archaeological Association</i>, Sept. 1904, fig. 4, Munro, p. +246.</p> +<p><a name="footnote80b"></a><a href="#citation80b" +class="footnote">[80b]</a> Munro, p. 246.</p> +<p><a name="footnote81"></a><a href="#citation81" +class="footnote">[81]</a> See Spencer and Gillen, +<i>Central Tribes</i>, fig. 21, 6; <i>Northern Tribes</i>, fig. +87.</p> +<p><a name="footnote82a"></a><a href="#citation82a" +class="footnote">[82a]</a> Munro, p. 55, referring to +<i>Ancient Lake Dwellings</i>, fig. 13, nos. 17, 18, 19.</p> +<p><a name="footnote82b"></a><a href="#citation82b" +class="footnote">[82b]</a> <i>Proceedings Scot. Soc. +Ant.</i> 1902, p. 168, fig. 4, 1903.</p> +<p><a name="footnote82c"></a><a href="#citation82c" +class="footnote">[82c]</a> Lockhart, iv. 208.</p> +<p><a name="footnote84a"></a><a href="#citation84a" +class="footnote">[84a]</a> Munro, p. 247.</p> +<p><a name="footnote84b"></a><a href="#citation84b" +class="footnote">[84b]</a> Munro, fig. 62, p. 248.</p> +<p><a name="footnote85a"></a><a href="#citation85a" +class="footnote">[85a]</a> <i>Début de +l’Art</i>, pp. 124-138.</p> +<p><a name="footnote85b"></a><a href="#citation85b" +class="footnote">[85b]</a> Munro, p. 260.</p> +<p><a name="footnote85c"></a><a href="#citation85c" +class="footnote">[85c]</a> Munro, p. 230.</p> +<p><a name="footnote85d"></a><a href="#citation85d" +class="footnote">[85d]</a> Munro, pp. 204, 205.</p> +<p><a name="footnote86"></a><a href="#citation86" +class="footnote">[86]</a> Munro, p. 260.</p> +<p><a name="footnote88"></a><a href="#citation88" +class="footnote">[88]</a> <i>Op. cit.</i> p. 172.</p> +<p><a name="footnote89"></a><a href="#citation89" +class="footnote">[89]</a> Nicholson, <i>Folk Lore of East +Yorkshire</i>, p. 87, Hull, 1890.</p> +<p><a name="footnote91"></a><a href="#citation91" +class="footnote">[91]</a> Haddon, <i>The Study of Man</i>, +pp. 276, 327.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95a"></a><a href="#citation95a" +class="footnote">[95a]</a> <i>Man</i>, 1904, no. 22.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95b"></a><a href="#citation95b" +class="footnote">[95b]</a> For the Caithness brochs, see +Dr. Joseph Anderson, <i>Proc. Soc. Scot. Ant.</i>, 1900-1901, pp. +112-148.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95c"></a><a href="#citation95c" +class="footnote">[95c]</a> <i>Native Tribes of North +Central Australia</i>, Spencer and Gillen, p. 274, 1894.</p> +<p><a name="footnote96"></a><a href="#citation96" +class="footnote">[96]</a> <i>Northern Tribes</i>, p. 268, +fig. 87, 1904.</p> +<p><a name="footnote97a"></a><a href="#citation97a" +class="footnote">[97a]</a> <i>Glasgow Herald</i>, letter of +October 17th, 1903.</p> +<p><a name="footnote97b"></a><a href="#citation97b" +class="footnote">[97b]</a> Munro, pp. 251-253.</p> +<p><a name="footnote100a"></a><a href="#citation100a" +class="footnote">[100a]</a> Vol. vii. p. 50, cf. +<i>Proceedings Scots Society of Antiquaries</i>, vol. vi. p. 112, +and, in Appendix to the same volume, p. 42, plate xix.</p> +<p><a name="footnote100b"></a><a href="#citation100b" +class="footnote">[100b]</a> Anderson, <i>Scotland in Pagan +Times</i>, p. 88.</p> +<p><a name="footnote101"></a><a href="#citation101" +class="footnote">[101]</a> Munro, p. 249, fig. 63.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102a"></a><a href="#citation102a" +class="footnote">[102a]</a> <i>Les Ages +Préhistoriques</i>, p. 100; cf. J. L. de +Vasconcellos’ <i>Religiões da Lusitania</i>, vol. i. +p. 69. Lisboa, 1897.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102b"></a><a href="#citation102b" +class="footnote">[102b]</a> <i>Antiguedades Monumentaes do +Algarve</i>, i. 298. Estacio da Veiga, Lisboa, 1886.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102c"></a><a href="#citation102c" +class="footnote">[102c]</a> <i>Religiões</i>, i. +69-70.</p> +<p><a name="footnote103a"></a><a href="#citation103a" +class="footnote">[103a]</a> <i>Antiguedades</i>, vol. ii. +429-481.</p> +<p><a name="footnote103b"></a><a href="#citation103b" +class="footnote">[103b]</a> <i>Religiões</i>, i. +168.</p> +<p><a name="footnote103c"></a><a href="#citation103c" +class="footnote">[103c]</a> <i>L’Anthropologie</i>, +vol. xiv. p. 542.</p> +<p><a name="footnote104"></a><a href="#citation104" +class="footnote">[104]</a> By Gongora de Martinez. +Madrid, 1868.</p> +<p><a name="footnote107"></a><a href="#citation107" +class="footnote">[107]</a> Munro, pp. 232, 234.</p> +<p><a name="footnote108"></a><a href="#citation108" +class="footnote">[108]</a> Munro, p. 228.</p> +<p><a name="footnote109"></a><a href="#citation109" +class="footnote">[109]</a> <i>Tribes of Central +Australia</i>, pp. 141-145.</p> +<p><a name="footnote111"></a><a href="#citation111" +class="footnote">[111]</a> Munro, pp. 260, 261.</p> +<p><a name="footnote112a"></a><a href="#citation112a" +class="footnote">[112a]</a> Munro, p. 158, pp. 223-227.</p> +<p><a name="footnote112b"></a><a href="#citation112b" +class="footnote">[112b]</a> Munro, p. 261.</p> +<p><a name="footnote114"></a><a href="#citation114" +class="footnote">[114]</a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 111-114.</p> +<p><a name="footnote115"></a><a href="#citation115" +class="footnote">[115]</a> <i>Proceedings</i>, vol. xxiii. +p. 272.</p> +<p><a name="footnote116a"></a><a href="#citation116a" +class="footnote">[116a]</a> Munro, p. 255.</p> +<p><a name="footnote116b"></a><a href="#citation116b" +class="footnote">[116b]</a> <i>Ibid</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote116c"></a><a href="#citation116c" +class="footnote">[116c]</a> <i>Native Tribes of Central +Australia</i>, p. 150.</p> +<p><a name="footnote117a"></a><a href="#citation117a" +class="footnote">[117a]</a> <i>L’Anthropologie</i>, +vol. xiv. p. 362.</p> +<p><a name="footnote117b"></a><a href="#citation117b" +class="footnote">[117b]</a> Cf. Munro, p. 57.</p> +<p><a name="footnote118"></a><a href="#citation118" +class="footnote">[118]</a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 84.</p> +<p><a name="footnote119a"></a><a href="#citation119a" +class="footnote">[119a]</a> Munro, p. 230.</p> +<p><a name="footnote119b"></a><a href="#citation119b" +class="footnote">[119b]</a> <i>L’Anthropologie</i>, +vol. xiv. p. 548. Dr. Laloy’s review of Mr. Y. +Koganei, <i>Ueber die Urbewohner von Japan</i>. Tokyo, +1903.</p> +<p><a name="footnote120a"></a><a href="#citation120a" +class="footnote">[120a]</a> Munro, p. 141.</p> +<p><a name="footnote120b"></a><a href="#citation120b" +class="footnote">[120b]</a> See Cappart, <i>Primitive Art +in Egypt</i>, p. 154, translated by A. S. Griffiths. +Grevel, London, 1905.</p> +<p><a name="footnote121a"></a><a href="#citation121a" +class="footnote">[121a]</a> Cappart, p. 90, fig. 60, p. 92, +fig. 62.</p> +<p><a name="footnote121b"></a><a href="#citation121b" +class="footnote">[121b]</a> <i>Ibid</i>. p. 95, fig. +66.</p> +<p><a name="footnote121c"></a><a href="#citation121c" +class="footnote">[121c]</a> Munro, p. 80.</p> +<p><a name="footnote121d"></a><a href="#citation121d" +class="footnote">[121d]</a> <i>Op. cit.</i>, p. 449.</p> +<p><a name="footnote122"></a><a href="#citation122" +class="footnote">[122]</a> Munro, p. 231.</p> +<p><a name="footnote123a"></a><a href="#citation123a" +class="footnote">[123a]</a> Munro, p. 262.</p> +<p><a name="footnote123b"></a><a href="#citation123b" +class="footnote">[123b]</a> Dr. Murray in Munro, pp. +257-258.</p> +<p><a name="footnote124a"></a><a href="#citation124a" +class="footnote">[124a]</a> Munro, p. 148.</p> +<p><a name="footnote124b"></a><a href="#citation124b" +class="footnote">[124b]</a> Munro, p. 264.</p> +<p><a name="footnote124c"></a><a href="#citation124c" +class="footnote">[124c]</a> Munro, p. 262.</p> +<p><a name="footnote124d"></a><a href="#citation124d" +class="footnote">[124d]</a> Munro, p. 220.</p> +<p><a name="footnote125"></a><a href="#citation125" +class="footnote">[125]</a> Munro, pp. 231-235.</p> +<p><a name="footnote127"></a><a href="#citation127" +class="footnote">[127]</a> Munro, pp. 56-73.</p> +<p><a name="footnote128"></a><a href="#citation128" +class="footnote">[128]</a> <i>Portugalia</i>, i. p. +646.</p> +<p><a name="footnote130"></a><a href="#citation130" +class="footnote">[130]</a> See Sr. Severo in +<i>Portugalia</i>, vol. ii. part i., 1905.</p> +<p><a name="footnote132"></a><a href="#citation132" +class="footnote">[132]</a> All the specimens of this group +were disinterred from the ruins of this fort.</p> +<p><a name="footnote137"></a><a href="#citation137" +class="footnote">[137]</a> See an interesting and +well-illustrated paper in <i>Report of Bureau on Ethnology</i>, +U.S., vol. ii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote139"></a><a href="#citation139" +class="footnote">[139]</a> Munro, <i>Proc. Soc. Ant. +Scot.</i>, 1900-1901, pp. 291-292.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CLYDE MYSTERY***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 20902-h.htm or 20902-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/0/9/0/20902 + + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://www.gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: +http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> diff --git a/20902-h/images/p104b.jpg b/20902-h/images/p104b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4514817 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p104b.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p104s.jpg b/20902-h/images/p104s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4ae7ccb --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p104s.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p113a.jpg b/20902-h/images/p113a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e3b6f60 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p113a.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p113bb.jpg b/20902-h/images/p113bb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..520cd5e --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p113bb.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p113bs.jpg b/20902-h/images/p113bs.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1cef9ff --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p113bs.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p120a.jpg b/20902-h/images/p120a.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d499020 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p120a.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p120bb.jpg b/20902-h/images/p120bb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..bc7e9ef --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p120bb.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p120bs.jpg b/20902-h/images/p120bs.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8faf993 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p120bs.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p128b.jpg b/20902-h/images/p128b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..824e842 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p128b.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p128s.jpg b/20902-h/images/p128s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3074394 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p128s.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p136ab.jpg b/20902-h/images/p136ab.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e182aa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p136ab.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p136as.jpg b/20902-h/images/p136as.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7fec32e --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p136as.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p136b.jpg b/20902-h/images/p136b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2d56c03 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p136b.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p136c.jpg b/20902-h/images/p136c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..72d2424 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p136c.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p40ab.jpg b/20902-h/images/p40ab.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cf1df50 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p40ab.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p40as.jpg b/20902-h/images/p40as.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8341597 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p40as.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p40b.jpg b/20902-h/images/p40b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e1b9a7e --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p40b.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p40c.jpg b/20902-h/images/p40c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9d91a79 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p40c.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p80ab.jpg b/20902-h/images/p80ab.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a64a6af --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p80ab.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p80as.jpg b/20902-h/images/p80as.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..944fde8 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p80as.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p80b.jpg b/20902-h/images/p80b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2891784 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p80b.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p80c.jpg b/20902-h/images/p80c.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..10669ef --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p80c.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p88b.jpg b/20902-h/images/p88b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cc48028 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p88b.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p88s.jpg b/20902-h/images/p88s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..64ae9d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p88s.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p96ab.jpg b/20902-h/images/p96ab.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..21856ef --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p96ab.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p96as.jpg b/20902-h/images/p96as.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..54b0623 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p96as.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p96bb.jpg b/20902-h/images/p96bb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ab283e --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p96bb.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p96bs.jpg b/20902-h/images/p96bs.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d154888 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p96bs.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p96cb.jpg b/20902-h/images/p96cb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7d48f28 --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p96cb.jpg diff --git a/20902-h/images/p96cs.jpg b/20902-h/images/p96cs.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9b294cb --- /dev/null +++ b/20902-h/images/p96cs.jpg |
